THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of the B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, seeking withdrawal of C.C.No.4927 of 2025, on the file of the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways-cum- VII Additional Civil Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to any other Court in Rajahmundry, for trial and disposal of the same. 2. Heard Sri J.Ravi Kumar, 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 petitioners who filed the present transfer petition are de-facto complainant and two witnesses in the C.C.No.4927 of 2025. 4. The ground urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of C.C.No.4927 of 2025 on the file of learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways-cum-VII Additional Civil Judge, Vijayawada to any other Court in Rajahmundry, is that the petitioners have moved an application before the trial Court to compromise through Lok Adalath, as the offence is compoundable and the trial Court refused to grant permission for interim custody of the case property and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners, though he has expressed his willingness to comply with any conditions and that the petitioners 2 herein filed this transfer petition before this Court seeking transfer of the case to any other Court in Rajahmundry. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the Investigating Officer, after obtaining necessary evidence, has identified the three accused and recovered the amount. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways-cum-VII Additional Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the three accused, and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.4927 of 2025, and the same is pending for adjudication. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded before this Court that petitioner No.1 is the de facto complainant and owner of the case property, due to certain reasons, they entered into a compromise with the family members of the accused, and based on their request, they sought permission of the Court below for compounding the offence and for interim custody of the case property, but the Court below did not allow the same, for which they filed the present transfer criminal petition. 6. 6. It is well settled that under Section 448 of the BNSS Act, a case may be transferred from one Court to any other Court to meet the ends of justice. But in the present case at hand, the petitioners have not shown any valid and sufficient ground for seeking transfer of the case, which is now pending before the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways-cum-VII Additional Civil Judge, Vijayawada, to any other Court at Rajahmundry. If the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners seeking interim 3 custody of the case property cash, they have to file a revision before the appropriate Court instead of filing the transfer petition seeking transfer of the case from one Court to another. 7. In the present case, the ground urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of case is that they have moved an application before the trial Court to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for compromise, as the offence is compoundable, and the trial Court refused to accord permission and also refused to grant interim custody of the case property i.e., Rs.60,00000/- and dismissed the petition filed by them, though they have expressed their willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. The transfer of case sought by petitioners appears to be based on the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioners seeking interim custody of the case property, and refused to grant permission to compound the offence and the said two petitions were dismissed by the trial Court, instead of filing revision petition to challenge the said orders before proper Court, the petitioners approached this Court for seeking transfer of case from Vijayawada to Rajamahendravaram, the same cannot be considered as a valid ground for transfer of the case from one Court to another Court. 8. Therefore the petitioners have not shown any valid and sufficient grounds for seeking transfer of a case from one Court to another Court. The reasons on which the transfer is sought cannot said to be reasonable and they have not made out any case for transfer of the case. 4 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. 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 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 67 TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 of 2026 Date: 20.02.2026 MH