APHC010377932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 57/2025 Between: Marella Chandana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking to set aside the order dated 03.05.2025, passed in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and to withdraw C.C.No.179 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur and transfer the same to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nellore. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Kaluvoy Police Station under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.07 of 2020, against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and after completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.179 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur and the same is pending for adjudication. While so, at the time of filing the charge sheet by the Investigating officer, the name of one Kota Sivasankar Reddy, who was one of the accused in Cr.No.07 of 2020, was deleted from the charge sheet. Thereafter, on 28.08.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur directed the petitioner to bring her children by the next date of adjournment in order to enable the respondent No.2 herein to interact with the children and accordingly, the case is being posted from time to time for bringing of children by the petitioner. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 21.11.2024, before the Court below, the petitioner herein sought time for filing transfer petition. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein had filed Tr.Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2025, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, seeking to withdraw the case in C.C.No.179 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur and transfer the same to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nellore, the Sessions Court vide its order dated 03.05.2025, dismissed the Tr.Crl.M.P., filed by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to set aside the order dated 03.05.2025, passed in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and to withdraw C.C.No.179 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur and transfer the same to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nellore. 3. Heard Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. Perused the material available on record. 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner herein has filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.07 of 2020, against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and after completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.179 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District has sent the remarks dated 07.08.2025, to the Registry and the same is placed on record. On a perusal of the said remarks, it is stated that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.08.2024, the Respondent No.2 herein has represented before the Court below that he is willing to take back the petitioner and her children to his conjugal life and sought for mediation, in view of the same, the Court below has posted the matter to 05.10.2024 and directed the petitioner herein orally to bring her children for effective and comprehensive mediation, but, on 05.10.2024, the petitioner was absent and the matter was posted from time to time, thereafter, on 05.03.2025, the petitioner herein has represented that she is intending to file transfer petition before the District Court and subsequently filed Tr.Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2025 before the learned Principal District Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, wherein the Court below vide its order dated 03.05.2025, dismissed the Tr.Crl.M.P., filed by the petitioner herein and directed the petitioner/L.W.1 to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur on 02.07.2025 and further the police are also directed to produce the witnesses. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District has stated in his remarks that when the matter is taken up for hearing on 02.07.2025, there is no representation on behalf of the L.W.1/petitioner herein and the matter was adjourned to 17.07.2025, thereafter, on 17.07.2025, again there is no representation on behalf of the L.W.1/petitioner herein, on the ground of ill-health and subsequently, due to absence of the petitioner/L.W.1 before the Court below, Bailable Warrant was issued to the petitioner. 6. 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 cast 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 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; 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 (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.” 7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that while transferring a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. As noticed from the remarks submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, S.P.S.R Nellore District, admittedly, it was an oral direction to the petitioner herein to bring her children for effective and comprehensive mediation and conciliation between both the parties, but not an order given by the trial Judge and due to non appearance of the petitioner on several occasions before the Court below, Bailable Warrant was issued to the petitioner/L.W.1 and the case in C.C.No.179 of 2020 was posted to 21.08.2025. Further, the law is well settled that while transferring a Criminal Case from one Court to another Court, the convenience of the witnesses has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the accused. “However, as the petitioner herein is the victim/de-facto complainant in C.C.No.179 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur and in a Criminal Case, the appearance of the victim is not at all required on each and every date of adjournment and he/she has to attend the Court proceedings on the day fixed for giving her evidence and the entire case has to be looked after by the learned Public Prosecutor of the concerned Court”. 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. 8. 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: 11.08.2025 SRT