APHC010386962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 61/2025 Between: Nanepalli Pydi Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUTYALA SOBHANADRI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV 2. 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.28 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali and transfer the same to the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka to try along with C.C.No.548 of 2022. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is working as a doctor at Visakhapatnam. While so, one Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao, who worked as a CISF Constable, Visakhapatnam along with the respondent No.2 herein and some other persons used to collectively run a consultancy and placement business, wherein the petitioner had paid Rs.10,00,000/-, for securing a job to his son in the East Coast Railway Department. As Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao has failed to provide a job to his son, the petitioner demanded for refund of money and for which Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao has executed promissory notes and issued cheques to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.03.2020, the said Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao along with some other persons had committed dacoity in the petitioner’s house and took away the promissory notes along with some other items. Alleging the same, the wife of the petitioner by name Smt. Nanepalli Atchuta Ramu had submitted a written report to the respondent No.1-Police. As no action has been taken by the respodnent-police, the petitioner’s wife had filed private complaint which was taken congnizance and numbered as C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, for the offences punishable under Sections 391, 395, 378, 379, 445, 448, 442 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and the same is pending for adjudication. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.2 herein had filed his written report in C.C.No.548 of 2022, stating that Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao has took money from the respondent No.2 stating that he would provide a T.C., job to the respondent No.2. Basing on the report submitted by the respondent No.2, another Crime in C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali was registered against Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao and the petitioner herein. He further represented that along with the aforesaid two cases, another two cases vide C.C.No.539 of 2021 and C.C.No.197 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Gajuwaka, were also registered against Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that with an intention to harass the petitioner and in order to compound the case filed by the petitioner’s wife, the petitioner herein was arrayed as the respondent No.2/accused No.2 in C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Court, Tenali. He further contend that the petitioner is the resident of Visakhapatnam and is suffering with severe health ailments and he was advised by the doctor not to travel long distances. He further contend that the distance in between Visakhapatnam and Tenali is approximately more than 300 Kms and that the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali and transfer the same to the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka. 3. Heard Sri Mutyala Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Sri Thoka Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru Police Station, Guntur Rural, the case in C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali, is filed against the petitioner herein and other accused by name Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao. But the name of the said Mr. Yeduvaka Atchuta Rao, is not shown as the respondent herein and instead he is shown as a party in the present transfer criminal petition. Further, the charge sheet filed by the Police in C.C.No.28 of 2021, shows that all the witnesses are residing within the limits of Amarthaluru Police Station, Guntur Rural, which is within the jurisdiction of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali. The main ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of a Criminal Case from Tenali to Gajuwaka is that the petitioner/accused is suffering with severe health ailments and the doctor had advised him not to travel long distances, and it is very difficult for him to travel from Visakhapatnam to Tenali for attending the Court proceedings before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali, which is situated at a distance of approximately more than 300 Kms. 5. The another ground urged by the petitioner while seeking transfer of the case in C.C.No.28 of 2021 from Tenali to Gajuwaka is that, the wife of the petitioner had filed a case in C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, for the offences punishable under Sections 391, 395, 378, 379, 445, 448, 442 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, against the respondent No.2 herein and 15 other persons and in order to avoid conflicting of Judgments, the case in C.C.No.28 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali, has to be tried together along with C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is not the de- facto complainant in C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, which is filed against the respondent No.2 herein and 15 other persons. 6. The law is well settled that “while transferring a Criminal Case, the convenience of the complainant or witnesses has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience caused to the accused.” Furthermore, for the purpose of transfer, “the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and a larger interest of the society shall be considered”. It is relevant to say that “at the time of transfer of Criminal Cases, the inconvenience caused to the witnesses in a Criminal case cannot be discarded”. 7. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of criminal 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; (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.” 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 8. 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. Admittedly, the charge sheet filed by the Police in C.C.No.28 of 2021, shows that all the witnesses are residing within the limits of Amarthaluru Police Station, Guntur Rural, which is within the jurisdiction of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tenali and on the other hand, all the witnesses who are cited in C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka are residing within the limits of Visakhapatnam. Furthermore, the offences that are alleged in both the cases are different from each other. Therefore, 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. 9. 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: 18.09.2025 SRT