APHC010356152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 50/2025 Between: 1. MORTHA LAKSHMI PRASANNA, W/O MORTHA JYOTHI BABU, D/O. BOJJAGANI SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.25-22, JANAKIRAMAIAH COLONY, RAMANNAPETA ROAD, NANDIGAMA TOWN AND MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MORTHA JYOTHI BABU, S/OJOHN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.D.NO 12-64, JESUS CHRIST CENTER, INDIRAMMA COLONY ROAD, MARRIPUDI VILLAGE, RAGAMPETA MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S): For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein pray that this Hon hie Court may be pleased to withdraw the C.C.No. 1629/2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandigama, NTR District in the interest justice IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased Stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1629/2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram pending disposal of the Tr.Crl .P. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner herein has filed the present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for „shot the Cr.P.C‟) seeking for withdrawal of C.C.No.1629 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, N.T.R. District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.2 is performed at about ten (10) years ago. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and the respondent No.2/husband were blessed with two (2) children and later, due to matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents‟ house along with her two (2) children at Nandigama. The petitioner/wife pleaded that, in view of the harassment made by the respondent No.2/husband, she had lodged a complaint before the Rangampeta Police Station in Crime No.49 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A& 326 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and after completion of the investigation, the same was numbered as C.C.No.1629 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram and she also filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.22 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the same were pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she has been residing along with her two (2) children at her parents‟ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Nandigama, it is very difficult for her to travel from Nandigama to Peddapuram, which is situated at a distance of more than 230 Kms to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking for withdrawal of C.C.No.1629 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, N.T.R. District. 3. Heard Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State. 4. As seen from the charge sheet filed by the Police, except the parents and the sister of the petitioner, all the witnesses are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram. 5. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors1held as follows: “24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should beexercised, it is 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are: (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.” 6. As noticed supra, in the charge sheet filed by the Police, except the parents and the sister of the petitioner, almost all the witnesses are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram. 7. In the case on hand, it is observed that admittedly, the petitioner is the de-facto complainant and she lodged a complaint before the Rangampeta Police Station in Crime No.49 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 326 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and after completion of the investigation, the same was numbered as C.C.No.1629 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, which is pending for adjudication. 8. 8. The law is well settled that while transferring the Criminal Cases from one place to another, the convenience of the witnesses has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience caused to the de-facto complaint. Therefore, on the ground that one of the witnesses i.e., the de-facto complainant had shifted his or her residence from one place to another place; the criminal case cannot be transferred to that place because the presence of the petitioner i.e., de-facto complainant before the Criminal Court is required only on one occasion i.e., on the date of recording her evidence. The entire prosecution has to be looked after by the learned Public Prosecutor of the concerned Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 10. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 28.07.2025 CVD