APHC010369072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 52/2025 Between: 1. M VENKATA RAMANA, S/O LATE KRISHNUDU, AGED 40 YEARS, PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O MARKANDEYA STREET, ATMAKUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. PADMAVATHI, , W/O SUBBAIAH, MARKANDEYA STREET. ATMAKUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. VENKATA LAKSHMI,, AGE 42 YEARS, W/O T. SRINIVASULU, H.NO.10/20, TELUGU PETA, NANDYAL TOWN KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. PULLAMMA,, AGE 60 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNUDU, MARKANDEYA STREET, ATMAKUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. M RADHIKA, W/O M. VENKATA RAMANA, D/O K. KAPILESWARAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 44/156, PRAKASHAM NAGAR, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Pleased to withdraw S.C. No. 4 of 2022 pending before the Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge for Offences Against Women-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool transfer to any other competent court for trial and disposal at Vijayawada, in accordance with law and pass 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 to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in S.C. No. 4 of 2022 on the file of HonTDle Special Sessions Judge for Offences Against Women-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Kurnool and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking for withdrawal of S.C.No.04 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for the Offences against Women-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool and to transfer the same to any other competent Court, at Vijayawada, for trial and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner as per the affidavit in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner No.1 submits that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 06.12.2014 at Kurnool, as per the Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes, respondent No.2 residing at her parents’ house at Kurnool, along with her daughter who is aged about 9 years. II. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Disha Women Police Station, Kurnool vide F.I.R.No.37 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 313 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and after due investigation, the same was numbered as vide S.C.No.04 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Offences against Women-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, and the same is pending, for adjudication. Thereafter, respondent No.2/wife filed F.C.M.C.No.56 of 2021 before the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, seeking maintenance and D.V.C. No.45 of 2022 before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool seeking divorce and the same is also pending for adjudication. The petitioner No.1/husband further pleaded that he filed F.C.O.P.No.63 of 2018 before the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and later, it was dismissed as withdrawn. III. The petitioner No.1/husband further pleaded that 2nd respondent’s father, namely Sri Kapileswaraiah, is a Senior Advocate and is highly influential political leader, who is presently functioning as State Vice-President of the BJP Political Party. Due to his professional and political influence, he, along with his family members, fellow Advocates, and political followers, has been consistently intimidating the petitioners, while attending the Court, in connection with the said cases and they are also threatening the petitioners with dire consequences. The petitioner No.1/husband is a permanent resident of Atmakur, Kurnool District, and is currently residing at Hyderabad for employment purposes and as such, petitioner No.1 is constrained to file the present petition seeking for withdrawal of S.C.No.4 of 2022 filed before the Special Sessions Judge for Offences against Women-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, and to transfer the same to any other competent Court at Vijayawada, for trial and disposal. 3. The respondent No.2/wife filed a counter-affidavit by denying the material allegations leveled by petitioner No.1/husband in the Transfer Criminal Petition and further stated that, father of the respondent No.2 Sri K. Kapileswaraiah, who is aged about 70 years is suffering with Diabetics along with old age ailments and he has no active practice for the last four (04) years, he is not attending to any political activities of BJP and he never threatened the petitioners nor influenced the Court, as alleged by the petitioners. The respondent No.2/wife further stated in her counter-affidavit that petitioner No.1/husband is not only continuously appearing in Sessions Case No.4 of 2022 but also in other three (03) cases vide D.V.C.No.45 of 2022, F.C.M.C.No.56 of 2021 and F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2024, which are pending before the competent Courts at Kurnool by engaging counsels, of his own choice. The respondent No.2/wife further stated that petitioner No.1 already filed Transfer O.P.No.1 of 2024, pertaining to D.V.C.No.45 of 2022 to transfer from the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool to the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, to try along with the other cases and the same was dismissed on 20.11.2024. 4. Heard Sri Regulagadda Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and Sri J. Janaki Ramireddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/wife. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The primary ground urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of S.C.No.4 of 2022, which is pending before the Special Sessions Judge for the Offences against Women-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool and to transfer the same to any other competent Court at Vijayawada for trial and disposal, is that “the father of the respondent No.2, is a practicing Advocate at Kurnool and he is highly influential political figure and due to his professional and potential clout, the petitioners are not able to secure an Advocate to represent them before the competent Courts at Kurnool”. Another ground urged by the petitioners for transfer of S.C.No.04 of 2022, is the father of the respondent No.2 along with his family members, fellow advocates and political followers has been consistently intimidating them, while attending the Court at Kurnool. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, drew attention of this Court that the petitioner is not only continuously appearing in Sessions Case No.4 of 2022 and also other three cases i.e., Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.45 of 2022, F.C.M.C.56 of 2021 & F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2021, which are pending before the competent Courts at Kurnool by engaging counsels of his own choice. 8. As seen from the material available on record, the petitioner No.1/husband i.e., respondent in D.V.C.No.45 of 2022 had filed his chief affidavit in his evidence as RW-1 in D.V.C.No.45 of 2022 in the month of July, 2022, which was filed very recently before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The allegation raised by petitioner No.1/husband against the father of the respondent No.2 that he is highly influential political figure and the petitioner is facing high difficulty to attend the case proceedings before the competent Courts at Kurnool, is not even taken by the petitioner in his evidence affidavit as RW-1 in D.V.C.No.45 of 2022. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has represented that the father of the respondent No.2 who is aged about 70 years is a Diabetic Patient having old age ailments and he is not practicing as an Advocate for the last four (04) years and he is not even attending the political activities of BJP and he never threatened the petitioners nor influenced the Court at any point in time, as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners also not even filed any prima facie evidence to show that the father of respondent No.2 is now practicing as an Advocate before the Courts at Kurnool since 2021. The law with regard to the transfer of the cases is well settled. A case is transferred from one Court to another Court, if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that, justice will not be done. In the case on hand, the same is not proved by the petitioner herein. 10. 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 &ors1 held 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 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is 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.” 11. The law is well settled that “the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjunctures and surmises.” 12. As seen from the charge sheet field by the Police before the concerned Court at Kurnool, all the witnesses in the Sessions Case No.04 of 2022 are residing at Kurnool Town. For the purpose of transfer of a case, convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and a larger interest of the society shall be considered. At the time of transfer of Criminal Cases, the inconvenience caused to the witnesses in a Criminal case cannot be discarded. 13. The law is well settled that in Transfer of Criminal Cases, the Court has to be consider the convenience of the witnesses than that of the inconvenience caused to the accused. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to seek for withdrawal of S.C.No.04 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Offences against Women-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool and transfer the same to any other competent Court Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 15. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. 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: 16.09.2025 CVD