IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL f/^/2 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -TJ' i3 yo om PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 86 OF 2024 Between: Kolli Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Penchala Reddy, Hindu, Male, aged 47 years, R/o.D.No.26-3-1417-4, Beside Venkaiah Naidu House, Ruthvik Enclave, A.K.Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State, Rep. by its PP, A.P. High Court, Amaravathi P.S., SPSR Nellore District. 2. Om Sri Siddeswara Rice Merchants, Rep. by its Proprietor, Maigoti Praveen Kumar Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, Hindu, 34 years, R/o.Vatambedu Village and Post P.S.Limits, SPSR Nellore District. SI of Police, Tada Male, aged Tada Mandal, Tada ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition filed under Section 447 of BNSS/Section praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the CC.No.422 of 2023, which is pending on file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sullurupet other Magistrate Court, i.e., Ongole or Tirupathi Districts. 407 of Cr.PC to any r I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 407 (6) of Cr.PC 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.422 of 2023 on file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sullurupet, till disposal of the petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy Respondent No.2 Advocate for The Court made the following ORDER : #*- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.86 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner herein has filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., seeking to transfer C.C.No.422 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet to any other Magistrate Court at Ongole or Tirupati Districts. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.422 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet. The petitioner used to do industrial catering in the name of SS Hospitality Services. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.2 had filed a case under Section 138 of Nl Act, against him. The petitioner further pleaded that he had never borrowed any amount from the respondent No.2, never signed any paper, khatha or pro-note and that there are no illegally enforceable debts in between him and the respondent No.2. The petitioner further pleaded that the entire transaction between him and the respondent No.2 had happened at Nellore Town and there is a clear life threat from the respondent No.2 at Sullurupet and surrounding areas and as such the petitioner herein was constrained to file the present Transfer Criminal Petition seeking to transfer C.C.No.422 of 2023, on 2 the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet to any other Magistrate Court at Ongole or Tirupati Districts. 3. The respondent No.2 had filed material averments pleaded by the petitioner and he the petitioner herein had connection with C.C.No.422 of 2023 and a detailed counter affidavit denying the further represented that never appeared before the Court at Sullurupeta in as such requested to dismiss the transfer criminal petition as there are no tenable grounds to consider the request of the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Public Prosecutor representing for the respondent Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the No. 1/State and respondent No.2. Perused the record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the respondent No.2 herein had filed C.C.No.422 of 2023 of First Class, Sullurupet, against the petitioner herein, the respondent would contend that the cheque presented by the herein was presented in the State Bank of India, Sullurupet Branch and the said cheque was dishonored. He further represented that the respondent is also residing at Tada Mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet. Learned counsel for the contend that the main ground urged by the petitioner for seeking the transfer of C.C.No.422 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 petitioner would r 3 Sullurupet, is that the petitioner is apprehending life threat in the hands of the respondent No.2 while attending the Court proceedings at Sullurupet and the petitioner herein had lodged a complaint before the Balaji Nagar Police Station, SPSR Nellore District vide Cr.No.182 of 2023, under Section 506, 290 IPC and the same is pending for investigation. But, it is undisputed by the both sides that after receipt of summons, the petitioner had engaged a counsel in C.C.No.422 of 2023 and he never appeared before the Court at Sullurupet in connection with C.C.No.422 of 2023. 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 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 follows: 6. 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; ' 2011(1)see 307 4 (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling official and non-official witnesses' besides the burden to be borne and other expenses of the (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere indicating some proof of inability of accusations made and the nature of holding fair and impartial trial because of the the crime committed by the accused; and (V) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the are so hostile that they are interfering course of justice.” or 7. As seen from the material is admitted by the learned counsel on record, this Court is of the opinion that, it appearing for both sides that the petitioner herein has received notice in C.C.No.422 of 2023 and had aiso engaged a counsel. It is also further represented by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner had Sullurupet, in connection with C.C.No.422 conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, urged by the petitioner herein in seeking transfer of the C.C.No.422 never appeared before the Court at of 2023, the same is fairly the sole ground of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet to Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ongole or at Tirupati, is that there is a life threat to the petitioner at Sullurupet, in the hands of the respondent No.2. But, I the considered view that am of we are still living in a Civilized Society” and I subsistence in the submission made by the petitioner that there see no would be any attending the Court any threat given to the petitioner by the respondent^o.2, the petitioner is always at liberty to complain the danger to the life of the petitioner herein while proceedings at Sullurupet and if there is same to rv 5 of First Class at Sullurupet and I the learned Judicial Magistrate of First steps as per law. On considering the facts and ci sure that if such a situation would Class, Sullurupet, will take am occur. appropriate 8. circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner such, the present Transfer Criminai Petition i and as is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 9- With the above observations, dismissed. There shall be the Transfer Criminal Petition iis no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. petitions, if any pending and the Interim SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. THREE CD COPIES BSV TAC HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.86 of 2024 DISMISSING THE TR.CRLP WITHOUT COSTS