APHC010103522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 36/2026 Between: Malladi Chaitanya and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Malladi Radha Madhavi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: Reserved on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 23.04.2026 Uploaded on 23.04.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.36 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw C.C.No.938 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and transfer the same to any of the competent jurisdictional Court at Guntur, Guntur District. 2. The case of the petitioner/husband is as follows: I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1/wife and their marriage has been performed on 13.03.2019, at Machilipatnam. The petitioner/husband pleaded that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the respondent No.1/wife lodged a complaint dated 13.06.2026, before the Women Police Station at Machilipatnam, vide FIR No.44 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet vide C.C.No.938 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam. The petitioner/husband further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife also filed H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_36_2026 Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said H.M.O.P., was allowed by the trial Court on 30.12.2025. The petitioner/husband further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife has also filed a Domestic Violence Case in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and a Maintenance Case in M.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and the petitioner/husband herein is attending the case proceedings in the aforesaid cases before the competent courts at Machilipatnam. II. The petitioner further pleaded that he filed F.C.O.P.No.643 of 2022, on the file of the Family Court, at Guntur, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband further contended that the petitioner is staying at Guntur along with his parents and it is very difficult for him to travel a distance of more than 100 kms from Guntur to Machilipatnam for attending the proceedings in the cases filed by the respondent No.1/wife before the courts at Machilipatnam, on each and every date of adjournment and that the petitioner/husband is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.938 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and transfer the same to any of the competent jurisdictional Court at Guntur, Guntur District. , VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_36_2026 3. Heard Sri Venkata Rao Penumaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2/State and none appeared for the respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.938 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam. On the complaint lodged by the respondent No.1/wife before the Women Police Station at Machilipatnam, a case in FIR No.44 of 2022 was filed against the petitioner/husband for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and after completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.938 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam. The material on record goes to show that the respondent No.1/wife has also filed a Domestic Violence Case in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022 and a Maintenance Case in M.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, in which cases the enquiry was already commenced and the petitioner also filed a case in H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said H.M.O.P. was allowed by the trial Court on 30.12.2025. The material on record further goes to show that the petitioner/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.643 of 2022, on the file of the Family VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_36_2026 Court at Guntur, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. 5. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the case are that his mother was diagnosed with 4th stage of Breast Cancer and his father is bedridden and they are staying at Guntur. The material on record prima facie goes to show that after completion of investigation, the Police, Women Police Station at Machilipatnam filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.938 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam, wherein a total of eight (08) witnesses are shown in the charge sheet and all the witnesses are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam. 6. The law is well settled that “no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding the transfer petition, which is always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. The convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioner/accused alone, who approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehension”. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the accused alone. The convenience for the purpose of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, witnesses and larger interest of the society. As noticed supra, all the eight (08) witnesses VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_36_2026 in C.C.No.938 of 2022 are residing within the jurisdiction of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam, in case, if C.C.No.938 of 2022, is withdrawn and transferred from Machilipatnam to Guntur, the witnesses will face much difficulty and they have to travel at a distance of more than 100 kms to give their evidence before the Court at Guntur. 7. 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. 8. 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: 23.04.2026 SRT