APHC010148602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 42/2026 Between: 1. CHEBROLU KRISHNAVENI, W/O.VENGALA RAOAGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE-WIFE,R/O.D.NO.20-3-265/1,4 LINE,GOWTHAMI NAGAR, KORITEPADU,GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH LINGASAMUDRAM POLICE STATION,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. CHEBROLU VENGALA RAO, S/O.VENKAIAH,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,R/O.MALAKONDARAYUDU VILLAGE,LINGASAMUDRAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to withdraw the C.C.No.49 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kandukuru Court and transfer the same to the Hon’ble Magistrate Court at Guntur City and 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 may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in the C.C.No.49 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kandukuru Court, pending disposal of the above Transfer Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D.RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.42 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS, 2023’), seeking to withdraw C.C.No.49 of 2026, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kandukur and to transfer the same to the file of learned Magistrate Court at Guntur for trial and disposal. 2. Heard Sri P.Ramaswamy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1. 3. Perused the record. 4. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.49 of 2026, has filed the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw the C.C.No.49 of 2026, on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kandukur, and transfer the same to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Guntur. 5. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of C.C.No.49 of 2026 are that the petitioner is currently residing at Guntur town and that it is very difficult for the petitioner to appear before the Court at Kandukur for giving evidence and would further contend that there is an apprehension of threat to the petitioner in the hands of the accused/ respondent No.2. Admittedly, there is no prima facie material produced by the petitioner to show that there was threat to the petitioner in the hands of the respondent No.2. 6. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner/defacto complainant, the police registered a case vide Cr.No.43 of 2025, on the file of Lingasamudram Police Station. After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur and the same is numbered as C.C.No.49 of 2026. The case is pending before the jurisdictional Court for trial and disposal. 7. The petitioner herein is not an accused and she is a victim/ defacto complainant in a charge sheet filed by police before the Court, therefore, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor of that Court to look after the prosecution in C.C.No.49 of 2026. Moreover, the stage of the present case is that charges have not been framed and the petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and she is also shown as witness No.1 and her appearance is not at all required on every date of adjournment in C.C.No.49 of 2026. Her appearance before the said Court in C.C.No.49 of 2026 is required only on one occasion that too at the time of giving evidence before the learned Magistrate and entire prosecution has to be looked out by the learned Public Prosecutor of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kandukur. 8. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India &ors1 held as follows: 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 “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.” 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case, and the present Transfer Criminal Petition is devoid of merits. 16. Accordingly, 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: 07.04.2026 JLSR