APHC010235002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 53/2026 Between: Yandrapati Rajkumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Gaali Saritharani and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KARRE SATYANANDAM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.53 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of the B.N.S.S. Act seeking to withdraw C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam and transfer the same to the Court having competent authority to conduct the trial at Guntur District. 2. The case of the petitioners is as follows: I. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2001, at Chirala. During their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the respondent No.1/wife is separately residing at her parents’ house at Srikakulam. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that the respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before the Disha Police Station, Srikakulam, under Section 498-A IPC vide Cr.No.50 of 2023 and after completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that the respondent No.1 herein has been working as a Science Teacher at Z.P. High School, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. II. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that he is working as a Farm Manager at RARS, Anakapalle and during the pendency of the criminal case, his mother died on 06.01.2026 and he along with his father i.e. the petitioner No.2 are presently residing at Chirala, Bapatla District. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that his father i.e. the petitioner No.2 is a Senior Citizen and is aged about 78 years and the distance between Chirala and Srikakulam is approximately 600 kms. The petitioners further pleaded that they have filed a quash petition before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam, and the same is pending before this Court. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that in order to gain undue influence on them, the respondent No.1 with an intent to harass the petitioners mentally and physically, filed the criminal case vide C.C.No.1009 of 2023 and that the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam and transfer the same to the Court having competent authority to conduct the trial at Guntur District. 3. The brief averments of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 are as follows: I. The respondent No.1 pleaded that her marriage with the petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 07.05.2001, at Chirala. During their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children aged about 18 years and 16 years respectively. The respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioner No.1/husband developed intimacy with one daily wage worker, at J.L.A.M. Farm, Guntur District and when the respondent No.1 questioned the same, the petitioner No.1 started harassing her mentally and physically. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that the petitioner No.1 did not look after her and their children and sometimes he did not come to the house. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that the petitioner No.1 and his parents used to harass her and in the meantime, the grandmother of the petitioner No.1 passed away, which was not informed to the respondent No.1 by the petitioners. However, when the respondent No.1 and her children went to Chirala for paying their condolences, the petitioner No.1 and his parents threw out the respondent No.1 and her children by beating them and also used filthy language against them. II. The respondent No.1/wife further pleaded that on 05.06.2023, she lodged a complaint before the Disha Urban Police Station, Srikakulam, vide Cr.No.50 of 2023 and after completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that, during the pendency of the said criminal case, the parents of the petitioner No.1 i.e. the petitioner No.2 and his wife (A1 and A2) filed Crl.P.No.1212 of 2024, before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam, wherein this Court by its order dated 28.02.2024, dispensed with the presence of the parents of the petitioner No.1 i.e. A-1 and A-2 before the trial Court except on the dates when the learned Magistrate feels their presence is necessary and after receipt of notice in the said criminal petition, the respondent No.1 herein filed a counter affidavit in the Crl.P.No.1212 of 2024, and the same is pending. III. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.33 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, seeking maintenance for herself and her children from the petitioner No.1 and the same is pending for adjudication. The respondent No.1/wife further pleaded that the list of witnesses cited in the charge sheet in C.C.No.1009 of 2023 i.e. L.W.2 Santhi Kumar is a senior citizen, who is aged about 76 years and L.W.3 Devanand is aged about 56 years and residing at Srikakulam. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that both the witnesses are suffering from age old ailments and L.W.2 also underwent a heart surgery and she is not in a position to travel from Srikakulam to Guntur for giving her evidence. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that she is working as a Science Teacher at Solasa Z.P.H.S. School, Edlapadu, Palnadu District and the petitioner No.1/husband is working as an Agricultural Officer at Agricultural College Farm, Bapatla and he is residing at Chirala. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that there are no grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner No.1/husband and requested to dismiss the transfer petition. 4. Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Karre Satyanandam, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2/State. Perused the material available on record. 5. As seen from the material available on record, the respondent No.1/wife filed a criminal case vide Cr.No.50 of 2023 and after completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet in the year 2023 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam and the said case was posted for trial. But, the petitioners herein approached this Court in the year 2026, for seeking transfer of the case in C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam, which is now pending for adjudication. Furthermore, the witnesses cited in the charge sheet in C.C.No.1009 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam, i.e. L.W.2 Santhi Kumar is a senior citizen, who is aged about 76 years and L.W.3 Devanand is aged about 56 years respectively and are residing within the jurisdictional limits of the Court at Srikakulam. Furthermore, the respondent No.1/wife pleaded that L.W.2 underwent a heart surgery and she is not in a position to travel from Srikakulam to Guntur for giving her evidence. The material on record further reveals that the respondent No.1/wife filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.33 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, against the petitioner No.1/husband seeking maintenance for herself and for her children and the same is pending for adjudication before the Court at Srikakulam. 6. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispose a fair and impartial justice un- influenced by extraneous considerations. Every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by the Court within its local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action and alleged offences as per the First Information Report are alleged to have been arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. It 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. It is also well settled that “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”. 7. As noticed supra, “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”. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 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: 17.06.2026 SRT