THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.41 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner/de-facto complainant filed the present petition under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, <Cr.P.C.=), seeking withdrawal of C.C. No.462 of 2018 from the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, and transfer the same to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, for trial and disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 3. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of C.C. No.462 of 2018 from the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, are as follows: i. The petitioner submits that she filed D.V.C. No.21 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. She further pleaded that, based on her complaint, the Women Police Station, Srikakulam, registered a case, conducted investigation, and laid the charge sheet before the learned 2 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, vide C.C. No.462 of 2018, and that both matters are still pending. She further contended that the parties and witnesses in both matters are one and the same. ii. The petitioner pleaded that she has to appear before the Court at Srikakulam along with her father, who is presently unwell due to old age, and therefore she is unable to assist him in travelling to the Court at Srikakulam. For this reason, she is unable to attend the Court and give evidence in C.C. No.462 of 2018. iii. The petitioner further pleaded that there are five witnesses in C.C. No.462 of 2018 who are residents of Vizianagaram, and it would be very difficult for them to appear before the Court at Srikakulam on each and every adjournment. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that due to the attitude of the petitioner, the trial has been stalled since 14.06.2019 and a Bailable Warrant has been issued against the petitioner/de-facto complainant by the trial Court. 5. As can be seen from the material available on record, D.V.C. No.21 of 2017, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, was instituted in the year 2017, whereas 3 C.C.No.462 of 2018 was instituted in the year 2018, before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. The cause of action and the mode of proof in both cases are different and distinct. As evident from the First Information Report, the alleged offence took place within the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. The petitioner herself invoked the jurisdiction of Srikakulam by approaching the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Srikakulam, and lodged a complaint, pursuant to which the crime was registered, investigation was completed, and the charge sheet was filed before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, vide C.C. No.462 of 2018. The said case has been pending for about eight years before the said Court. 6. The distance between Srikakulam and Vizianagaram is only about 60 kilometers, and about one hour is sufficient to travel from Vizianagaram to Srikakulam. As stated above, the case has already been stalled for a period of eight years, at Srikakulam, at this stage, if C.C.No.462 of 2018 is transferred to the Court at Vizianagaram, the matter would be delayed further. Moreover, the appearance of petitioner in C.C.No.462 of 2018 before the Court at Srikakulam is required on only one occasion that is on the date of recording her 4 evidence, later the entire case on behalf of prosecution is required to be attended by Public Prosecutor of Court at Srikakulam. 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 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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any grounds to consider the request of the petitioner, and there are no merits in the present transfer petition to transfer the C.C.No.462 of 2018 on the file 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 5 of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. 9. At this stage, it is represented by the learned counsel on both sides that, since the case pertains to the year 2018, a time limit may be fixed for the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, to complete the trial and dispose of the matter on merits. 10. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, is directed to dispose of C.C. No.462 of 2018 within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to the Registrar (Judicial). 11. 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: 10.02.2026 Issue CC by 11.02.2026 B/o. MH 6 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 04 TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.41 of 2024 Date: 10.02.2026 Issue CC by 11.02.2026 B/o. MH