IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATjj^y^ WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFERCRIMINAL PETITION NO: 78 OF 2024 Between: Panchala Soumy W/o.Panchala Balakrishna aged about 28 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.Chennuu Road, Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. 2. Penchala Balakrishna, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 31 years, Occ RMP Doctor, Darsi, Addgnki Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Complainant Petition filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C, pleased to withdraw the C.C No.710/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Darsi, Prakasham District and transfer the same to the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore District at Kovvuru. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 407 (6) of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C No.710/2022, dt. 16.11.2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Darsi, Prakasham District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Manda Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANDA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.78 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to withdraw C.C.No.710 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, Nellore District, for trial. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. The petitioner herein pleaded that the Sub-Inspector of Police, I. Darsi, filed a false case against her and other accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and the same was registered as C.C.No.710 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District. It is further pleaded that the petitioner herein and other accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.710 of 2022 are having name and fame in and around in their area and the de-facto-complainant had falsely implicated them in the above said case with a mala-fide intention. The petitioner herein is the wife of the de-facto-complainant. The de-facto- complainant made a complaint against her on 23.11.2021. Originally, the incident was happened on 29.08.2021 but the de-facto- complainant lodged a complaint on 23.11.2021. Thereafter, the Police 2 developed a false case intentionally against the petitioner herein and she is no way connected with the allegations made by the 2^^ respondent in the complaint. III. The petitioner further pleaded that the de-facto-complainant made omnibus allegations against them, but they never involved in the said offences, there are no specific allegations against them, which clearly reflected in the complaint made by the respondent No.2. The Police conducted an enquiry and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., they all are one and the same. IV. The petitioner herein further pleaded that the Police did not conduct any proper enquiry on the complaint lodged by the de-facto- complainant. The allegations that are alleged by the de-facto- complainant against the petitioner and the other accused are all cock & bull stories. It is clear from the complaint copy that the Respondent- Police foisted a false case against the petitioner and the other accused. V. The petitioner herein further pleaded that the de-facto- complainant in his complaint alleged that the petitioner and the other accused beat the de-facto-complainant with hands and legs and threatened him with dire consequences. But, to support the same, no documentary or medical evidence was adduced. Further, neither the ^ ' 3 Investigating Officer nor any medical officer was examined to prove the case of the prosecution. VI. The petitioner herein further pleaded that the distance between Nellore and Darsi is approximately 60 KMs and she being a woman, it is very difficult for her to travel without any male support to attend the subject case proceedings and the de-facto-complainant is also threatening her with dire consequences and that the petitioner is constrained to file the present Transfer Criminal Petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.710 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Court Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, Nellore District. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/State, filed his counter-affidavit. 5. Though notice was sent to the respondent No.2 and the same was served on him. But none appeared for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 6. 7. As seen from the charge sheet filed by the Police, ail the witnesses are residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District. 8. 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. 4 considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors^ 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 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 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 influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (Hi) 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 on some may ‘ 2011(1)see 307 5 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 some persons are so hostile that they are Interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice. ” On considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case-law, 9. since all the witnesses in the charge sheet filed by the Police are residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Darsi, Prakasam District, therefore, I am of the considered view that it is not justifiable to withdraw the case proceedings in C.C.No.710 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Darsi Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Kovvuru, Nellore District. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for 10. the petitioner that, the petitioner herein being a woman it is very difficult for her to travel from Nellore to Darsi to attend the case proceedings without any male support, which is pending before the said Court, therefore, the personal appearance of the petitioner herein i.e.. Accused No.1 in C.C.No.710 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial 6 Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District, has been dispensed with, “except on the days when her personal appearance is required as per law”. 11. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is disposed of. 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. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FT SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Darsi District 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore District at Kovvuru 3. Panchala Soumy W/o.Panchala Balakrishna aged about 28 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.Chennuu Road, Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Penchala Balakrishna, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 31 years, Occ RMP Doctor, Darsi, Addgnki Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. One CC to Sri Manda Venkateswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies Prakasham PR sree HIGH COURT DATED: 12/02/2025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.78 of 2024 ANOly^^ 2 8 FEB 2025 ^ ^ . Current Section ggSPATCX^-^ DISPOSING THE TRCRLP