IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Janyavula Kumari, W/o. Subramanyeswara Rao, Aged about 38 years, R/o. D. No. 18/259-1, Pedayerukapadu, Gudivada Town Mandal Krishna District, A.P. ...Petitioner/De-facto Complainant AND 1. Mendu Sairam @ Veera Venkata Naga Sairam, S/o. Mallikharjuna Rao, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Pedayerukapadu, Gudivada Town and Mandal Krishna District, A. P. 2. Mendu Nagamalleswari, W/o. Mallikharjuna Rao, Aged about 47 years^ R/o. Pedayerukapadu, Gudivada Town and Mandal, Krishna District A.P. 3. Mendu Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Sobhandri, Aged about 51 years, R/o. Pedayerukapadu, Gudivada Town and Mandal, Krishna District, A.P. 4. The Station House Officer, Gudivada II Town Police Station. Gudivada Town and Mandal, Krishna District, A P Through Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, ...Respondent/Accused Nos.1 to 3 % Petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the > circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Transfer Criminal . I; PjetitiOn, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the C.C. No. 694 of .-2022, pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam or any other Court in Krishna District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 407(6) 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 all further proceedings, in C.C.No.694 of 2022, pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- First Class Magistrate, Gudivada. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.4. The Court made the following: % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.2 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 407 of Code of Crinninal Procedure, 1973, seeking transfer of C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicia l Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, or any other competent Court in Krishna District, for trial. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the de-facto-complaint in C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First at Gudivada. After lodging a complaint against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 herein, the Sub-Inspector of Police II Town Police Station, Gudivada, registered a case against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 509 & 109 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C and after completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet vide C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicia Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada and the same is pending for adjudication. She pleaded that she has been residing at Gudivada and the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 are also residing nearby locality at Gudivada and they are having land disputes. She further pleaded that the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 are used to threatened & harassed her 2. I. Class 2 VGKR, J Tr.Crl.P.No.2 of2025 and her husband, that they will kill them, if they adduce the against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3, in C.C.No.694 of 2022, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada and that she is constrained to file the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would is pending for trial. The contention of the learned pet\t\oner/de-facto-complainant is that, the respondent/accused 3 have been threatening the pem\oner/de-facto-complainant husband, that they kill them, if they will adduce the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid case. Learned Public Prosecutor evidence 3. contend that the said case counsel for the Nos.1 to and her evidence against the 4. appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 would contend that the State is having objection to transfer the present case from Gudivada to Machilipatnam. He would further contend that, at the time of transfer of Criminal Case, the convenience of the Witnesses has to be taken into consideration rather than the Inconvenience caused to the de-facto-complainant and the entire prosecution will be looked after by the learned Public Prosecutor case of of that Court, the presence of the petitioner herein iIS not at all required, except He would further may be dismissed. on the date of giving evidence before the trial Court. contend that the present Transfer Criminal Petition because it is devoid of any merits. 5. Heard Sri Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar, representing on behalf of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned learned counsel counsel for 3 VGKR, J Tr.Crl.P.No.2 of 2025 the petitioner and Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. Though the notices have been sent to the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same were received by them. But, none appeared for the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner herein is a de-facto-complainant, in C.C.No.694 of 2022, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada, which is filed against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same is pending for adjudication. Admittedly, no prima facie evidence is produced by the petitioner herein to prove the alleged threat. Moreover, the appearance of the petitioner/de-facfo-comp/a/nanf in C.C.No.694 of 2022, is required only on one occasion i.e., on the date of giving evidence and the entire case of prosecution will be looked after by the learned Public Prosecutor of 6. 7. 8. that Court. 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 & ors^ held as 9. follows: " 2011 (1) see 307 4 VGKR, J Tr.Crl.P.No.2 of 2025 “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; (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 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 (y) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are 5 VGKR, J Tr.Crl.P.No.2 of 2025 likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice. ” The charge sheet filed by the Police goes to show that the petitioner is the de-facto-complainant and total nine (9) witnesses including the petitioner herein and respondents herein, all are residing at Gudivada and the aforesaid case is also pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that, it is not a fit case to transfer of C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada, to the Court of sJudicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, or any other competent Court in Krishna 11. District. Therefore, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. There 12. 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// SEenON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum - First Class Magistrate Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gudivada, Krishna District. 3. The Station House Officer, Gudivada II Town Police Station, Krishna District. 4. One CC to Sri P S P Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies SAM sree ^ HIGH COURT l3^TED:04/02/2025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.2 of 2025 \ 7 FEB 2C25 ii/3: COii '\<s> ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THIS TRCRLP WITHOUT COSTS