APHC010377622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 56/2025 Between: Yerramsetti Sita Mahalakshmi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY 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 withdraw C.C.No.186 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva and transfer the same to the X Additional District-Cum-Special Sessions Judge, at Machilipatnam to try along with Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Challapalli Police Station under Sections 354-A, 509, 447, 290 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.186 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva and the same is pending for adjudication. While so, the respondent No.3 herein had filed a written complaint before the Challapalli Police Station against the petitioner under Sections 509, 290 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act and the same was registered as Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022, on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein had field Tr.Crl.M.P.No.14 of 2022, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, seeking to withdraw the case in C.C.No.186 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva and transfer the same to the X Additional District-Cum-Special Sessions Judge, at Machilipatnam, the Sessions Court vide its order dated 23.05.2025, 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 withdraw C.C.No.186 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva and transfer the same to the X Additional District- Cum-Special Sessions Judge, at Machilipatnam to try along with Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022. 3. Heard Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, 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 is the accused in S.C.No.21 of 2022, pending on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Whereas, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the accused in a case filed by the petitioner vide C.C.No.186 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva. On a perusal of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in C.C.No.186 of 2022, it reveals that all the independent witnesses, who are arrayed in the aforesaid charge sheet, are very much residing within the jurisdictional limits of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva. 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 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: 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 (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. 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. 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. Further, as noticed supra, the petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.21 of 2022, pending on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the accused in C.C.No.186 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva and if both the aforesaid Criminal case are tried separately, the same would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and as well as the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Further, if the case in C.C.No.186 of 2022 is transferred from Movva to Machilipatnam, it would cause inconvenience to all the independent witnesses who are residing within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Movva. 7. For 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: 06.08.2025 SRT