f •''-"7 •5 5 t APHC010107512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI^ i WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE > ■ PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALU GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15 OF 2025 Between: ; ■ ) . Jeeru Eswar Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana, aged 33 years, R/6 13- 159/5, Sithanagaram, Tadepalli, Guntur District, currently residing at, G2, S4, Sravani Apartment 5 Near Sivalayam Road, Vnayaka Terhple Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawacia,‘’NtR District. Andhra Prades^^ Corner, I ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pfadesh;'fe^ its Public Prosecutor High Court of A P Velagapudi, Amarav^ti; Guntur District. 2. Mohhammad Khatija, S/o Mohhammad Ahamed, aged 30 years, R/0 9- 42-57, Kothapeta, 1-Town, Near KBN College, Vijayawada District, Andhra Pradesh NTR j • ' <1 /-“'i Respondents Petition filed under section 147 of BNSS, Rrayirig that circumstances stated in the affi^S: filed therewith, the High Court pleased to transfer of the Calender Case C.C.No. 3/2025, from the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1^‘ Class cum Civil Judge (Junior Division)'Court in the may be > f'r r-ir' 0- T Chief MetrbjDolitian Magistrate Court Mangalagiri, to the court of I! Vijayawada to club along with CC. 3986/2022, and pass j lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151-‘CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 3/2025 before the court of Hon’ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class CUM Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Mangalagiri pending disposal of this Tr.CrI. P. and pass j 1 Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. N Lalitha Sree, Learned Counsel representing for Sri Kota Gupta Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor 'r Counsel for the Respondent No,2: Smt. C C Kasthuri Daniel The Court made the following:;: y ' -■-V ;• k.C 1 ft ■ . f r*' THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., seeking to transfer C.C.No.3 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri to the II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada to club along with C.C.No.3986 of 2022. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. I. The respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint before Disha Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District against the petitioner/accused vide FIR No.132 of 2022 under Sections 354D, 417, 448, 509 and 506 IPC. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.2 had also lodged another complaint before the Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District against petitioner/accused vide FIR No.285 of 2022, under Sections 120-B, 354(A), 354(D), 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Thereafter, the Police after completing investigation has filed charge sheets in the aforesaid crimes vide C.C.No.3986 of 2022, on the file of the II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada and C.C.No.03 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri. The petitioner further pleaded that he has lodged a complaint before the Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada against the 2 respondent No.2 vide Cr.No.165 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC and the same was number as C.C.No.333 of 2023, on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.444 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri seeking to preserve the data records which are available with the telecom service provider with regard to the Cr.No.285 of 2022. He further contend that both the C.C.No.3986 of 2022, on the file of the II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada and C.C.No.03 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri are related to each other and can be triable by the same Court for avoiding contrary of Judgments and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present application seeking to transfer C.C.No.3 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum- Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri to the II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada to club along with C.C.No.3986 of 2022. cases VIZ. 3. Heard Ms. N.Lalitha Sree, learned counsel representing Sri Kota Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor representing for the respondent No. 1/State and Ms. C.C.Kasthuri Daniel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 appeared through virtual hearing. Perused the record. 3 4. The material on record prima facie shows that in the aforementioned cases, the date of alleged incident and the witnesses are different from each other. Further, the petitioner herein is the accused No.1 and one Boyalla Kiran is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.03 of 2025, pending before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri whereas the case in C.C.No.3986 of 2022, on the file of the II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, has been filed against the sole accused i.e., the petitioner herein. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, 5. 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 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 ^ dause physical harm to the complainant;1,. ^ 2011(1)see 307 4 (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 indirectly with the course of justice.” or 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. As stated supra, the date of alleged incident and as well as the witnesses in the both the cases are different with each. Further, the law is well 6. 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. 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. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is 7. dismissed. 5 As a sequel, misceHaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASAJRAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// Ir SECTION OFFICER i 5;-;- . To, • i ■5- 1. The II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, ^ Krishna District 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1^* Class cum Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Mangalagifi,'Guntur District. 3. The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. - ‘ ‘ 4. The Station House Officei;,Wijayawada Disha Police Station, Krishna District 5. One CC to Sri Kota Gupta Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Smt C C KasthurlDaniel Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at" ? Amaravati [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies Y ' t, SAM (gsg) / HIGH COURT f DATED:25/06/2025 ORDER ^ TRCRLP No.15of 2025 DISMISSING THE TRCRLP