THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.13 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of the B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, seeking transfer of C.C.No.1002 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, to the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal of the same. 2. Heard Sri B. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State. 3. Perused the material available on record. 4. The grounds urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of C.C.No.1002 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, to the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, are that accused No.3/petitioner No.3 herein is staying at her parents’ house along with her two children at Bhimavaram. Another ground urged by the 3rd petitioner is that she has filed three cases against the 2nd respondent, i.e., C.C.No.28 of 2025 and M.C.No.3 of 2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (145 of BNSS), on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, and a domestic violence case in S.R.No.4024 of 2 2025, on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, and the same are pending for adjudication. Another ground urged by the petitioners is that there is a threat at the hands of the 2nd respondent. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are residing within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, and the alleged offence is said to have taken place within the same jurisdiction, and the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. 6. As can be seen from the first ground urged by the petitioners seeking transfer, the two children are of tender age, being about five and seven years respectively, and are currently staying with the 3rd petitioner at her parents’ house at Bhimavaram. In a criminal case, every alleged offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action and the alleged offence as per the First Information Report, are alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Vijayawada. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the alleged offence took place within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vijayawada. The cause of action also arose at Vijayawada, the charge sheet was filed by the police against the petitioners herein before the Court at Vijayawada. The material on record prima facie reveals that all the witnesses are residing within the jurisdiction of the Judicial 3 Magistrate of First Class at Vijayawada. In such a case, if the matter is withdrawn and transferred to West Godavari District at Bhimavaram, all the witnesses will face considerable inconvenience. Another ground urged by the petitioners seeking transfer of the case is that there is a threat at the hands of the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, no prima facie material has been placed before this Court to show that there is any threat from the hands of 2nd respondent. A mere apprehension of threat, without any prima facie evidence, is not a ground for considering the request of the petitioners for transfer of a case from one place to another. 7. 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 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 4 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.” 8. It is settled that no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties, including the witnesses to be 5 produced at the trial, is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The ground urged by the petitioners that the 3rd petitioner herein has instituted three matrimonial cases cannot be equated with the criminal case filed against the petitioners. Furthermore, the convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners/accused alone, who have approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehensions. Convenience, for the purposes of transfer, means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses, and the larger interest of society. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no valid grounds to allow the present petition, and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit. 10. With the above observations, this Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 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: 20.02.2026 MH 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 46 TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.13 of 2026 Date: 20.02.2026 MH