APHC010042522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10/2026 Between: 1.LAKKANABOINA SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/O.BIKSHALU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.GONTRU GOPI RAJU, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.LAKKANABOINA RAMBABU ALIAS RAMPANDU, S/O. LATE BASAVALAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.GONTRU KRISHNA, S/O.TIRUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.GONTRU MALLESH AIAS NAGAMALLESWARA RAO, S/O.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6.GONTRU CHITTIBABU, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. 7.LAKKANABOINA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. 8.GONTRU VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O.CHITTIBABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.GONDRU GOPALASWAMY ALIAS CHINNA GOPI, S/O.VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,R/O. THATAKUNTIA VILLAGE, VISSANNA PET MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT BUILDINGS,AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to withdraw the C.C.No.304 of 2020 pending on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Tiruvuru and to transfer the same to the court of the XV Additional Sessions Judge at Nuzvidu try along with S.C.No.31 of 2024 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including presence of the petitioners in S.C.No.31 of 2024 pending on the file of the court of the XV Additional Sessions Judge at Nuzvidu, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Tr.CrI. Petition in this Hon’ble Court and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including presence of the petitioners in C.C.No.304 of 2020 pending on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Tiruvuru, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Tr.CrI. Petition in this Hon’ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for ‘short the B.N.S.S.’) seeking for withdrawal of C.C.No.304 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, and transfer the same to the file of the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu, to try along with S.C.No.31 of 2024, for trial and disposal. 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/State submitted that C.C.No.304 of 2020, is filed before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru and the Sessions Case vide S.C.No.31 of 2024, is filed before the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu and both the cases are pending at different places and whereas transferring the said C.C.No.304 of 2020, which is at an advanced stage would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice to the respondent and prosecution, he requested to dismiss the present petition filed by the petitioners. 3. Heard Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/State. 4. As seen from the material available on record, the C.C.No.304 of 2020, was filed before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru and the case is pending for adjudication since the year 2020 and the stage of the said case is for recording the evidence of witnesses. The averments in the affidavit of the petitioner itself shows that the prosecution examined the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 6 & 8 in C.C.No.304 of 2020, which is pending before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru and the stage of the said case is for recording the evidence of witnesses, whereas the sessions case i.e. S.C.No.31 of 2024, is pending before the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu and the stage of the said sessions case is for hearing of the accused on the charges. Both the aforesaid cases are pending at different places before different Courts. 5. The material on record further reveals that C.C.No.304 of 2020 is filed against the sole accused by name Sri Gundru Gopalaswamy, who is shown as the first witness in S.C.No.31 of 2024, filed against all the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 to 8, which is pending before the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu. As stated supra, the stage of the said C.C.No.304 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 of 2020, which is pending at Tiruvuru Court, is for recording the evidence of witnesses and the stage of another case i.e. S.C.No.31 of 2024, is posted for hearing of the accused on the charges and both the cases are pending at different places. The prosecution witnesses’, medical evidence and investigation in both the cases are different. 6. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of the criminal case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the facts 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 & ors1 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 or cause physical harm to the complainant; (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 or indirectly with the course of justice.” 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merits and subsistence in the contention taken by the petitioners, seeking for withdrawal of C.C.No.304 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, and transfer the same to the file of the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu. As such, the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 05.02.2026 CVD