APHC010368912026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 73 OF 2026 Between: 1. Mahimaluri Sumanjali, W/o. Nimmagadda Uday Kiran,Private Employee, aged about 23 years,R/o. D. No.8 Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. 2. Mahimaluri Vasu, S/o. Subramanyam, aged about 51 years,R/o. D. No.8 19/1-85, Arundhathi Nagar,K 3. Mahimaluri Chitti, W/o. Vasu, aged about 51 years,R/o. D. No.8 Arundhathi Nagar,Kakani Road, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecuto Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Nimmagadda Uday Kiran, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 36 years,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, A.P.-518501. 3. Nimmagadda Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about years,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, A.P.-518501. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 73 OF 2026 Sumanjali, W/o. Nimmagadda Uday Kiran,Private Employee, aged about 23 years,R/o. D. No.8-19/1-85, Arundhathi Nagar,Kakani Road, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. 2. Mahimaluri Vasu, S/o. Subramanyam, aged about 51 years,R/o. D. No.8 85, Arundhathi Nagar,Kakani Road, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. 3. Mahimaluri Chitti, W/o. Vasu, aged about 51 years,R/o. D. No.8 Arundhathi Nagar,Kakani Road, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Nimmagadda Uday Kiran, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 36 years,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, 3. Nimmagadda Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about years,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR Sumanjali, W/o. Nimmagadda Uday Kiran,Private Employee, 85, Arundhathi Nagar,Kakani Road, 2. Mahimaluri Vasu, S/o. Subramanyam, aged about 51 years,R/o. D. No.8- akani Road, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. 3. Mahimaluri Chitti, W/o. Vasu, aged about 51 years,R/o. D. No.8-19/1-85, ...Petitioners r,High Court of 2. Nimmagadda Uday Kiran, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 36 years,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, 3. Nimmagadda Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 60 years,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, 2 4. Nimmagadda Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 63 years, Retd. Govt. Employee,R/o. N.G.O. Colony, Lalitha Nagar,Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, A.P.-518501. ...Respondents Pleased to transfer the case C.C. No. 1054/2025 which is pending on the file of the Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal, Kurnool District to the file of Hon’ble VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-VI Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including trial in C.C. No.1054/2025 which is pending on the file of the Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the transfer petition Counsel for the Petitioners: Nanda Kishore Konduri Counsel for the Respondents: Varshitha Kaligineedi & Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 73/2026 ORDER: This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) / Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 2. Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are represented through Petitioner No.1, Smt. Mahimalauri Sumanjali. The present Petition is filed seeking withdrawal of C.C.No.1054 of 2025 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nandyal, Kurnool District, and transfer the same to the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the husband of Petitioner No.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of Respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1. 4. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that her marriage with Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 08.08.2024 at Nandyal, as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of elders and well-wishers. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 gave dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. After the marriage, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 led marital life for about 20 days. On 31.08.2024, disputes arose between them and they started living separately. 6. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, which was registered as C.C.No.1054 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, pursuant to the complaint lodged before the Nandyal Two Town Police Station. 4 7. On the other hand, Petitioner No.1 also lodged a complaint, which was registered as C.C.No.6724 of 2025 and is pending on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District. 8. The Petitioner No.1 asserts that it is difficult for the Petitioners to attend the day-to-day proceedings in C.C.No.1054 of 2025 at Nandyal. It is further stated that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are aged persons and that Petitioner No.1 is dependent upon them. The Petitioners apprehend that, on appearing before the Court at Nandyal, they may be influenced or threatened by the Respondents, as the Respondents are local persons. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking withdrawal of C.C.No.1054 of 2025 and transfer of the same from Nandyal to Guntur, mainly on the ground that Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are threatening the Petitioners and that it is difficult for them to attend the proceedings at Nandyal. 9. Respondent No.1-State has not filed counter. 10. Respondent No.2 has filed counter opposing the relief stating that the present petition is filed only to harass the Respondents. Petitioner No.1 wrongly mentioned her occupation as private employee and age 23 years. But the petitioner is aged about 27 years. The petitioner in fact works at Chennai in M/s. Coronis Ajuba Solutions, Mettukuppam, Thoraipakkam, OMR Chennai. She has been residing there independently in a Paying Guest accommodation. She is in habit of undertaking long distance travel from Chennai and Guntur without any assistance. Therefore her contention that there is difficulty to attend Nandyal is not correct. The petitioner being qualified B. Pharmacy graduate and earning Rs.50,000/-. As such, the alleged condition is that the distance is about 288 kilometres is not a ground to consider the application. 12. The defence of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that the present petition is misconceived. It is contended that Petitioner No.1 had earlier filed Tr.Crl.P.No.55 of 2026 seeking a similar relief and that the said petition was 5 subsequently withdrawn. The allegation of threat is denied. It is contended that there is no sufficient ground to hold that the petitioners would face any threat or difficulty in attending the Court at Nandyal. 13. Respondent No.2 contends that the said case is still at the stage of summons and that the Petitioners have not yet made their appearance before the Court at Nandyal. Therefore, according to him, there is no question of the petitioners having been threatened or influenced. He further states that he lodged the complaint against the petitioners alleging misrepresentation in relation to the marriage, as the Petitioner No.1 allegedly had a relationship with another person prior to the marriage. His complaint was taken cognizance of and registered as C.C.No.1054 of 2025. 14. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, being the parents of Respondent No.2, are dependent upon him. It is contended that it would be difficult for them to travel all the way from Nandyal to Guntur to attend the day-to-day proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that there are no compelling reasons to consider the present petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have advanced their respective arguments. 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners have to travel all the way to Nandyal to attend the day-to-day proceedings. Apart from the said difficulty, it is also submitted that the Petitioners are apprehending threat from the Respondents. 17. The said apprehension is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 18. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that there is no threat as such and that the matter is still at the stage of summons. The Petitioners have not yet made their appearance before the Court at Nandyal. It is further submitted that, in fact, it would be difficult for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to attend the day-to-day proceedings at Guntur. 6 19. Both learned counsel have fairly submitted that they have moved applications before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the proceedings in C.C.No.1054 of 2025, seeking appropriate relief, including dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that C.C.No.6724 of 2025 is also under challenge before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Both learned counsel submitted that interim orders have been granted in the respective matters, dispensing with the personal appearance of the parties. 20. The submissions of the learned counsel would show that the proceedings in C.C.No.1054 of 2025 & C.C.No.6724 of 2025 filed on the complaint of Respondent No.2 as well as the proceedings arising out of the complaint lodged by the Petitioner No.1, are already under challenge before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by moving applications. 21. Further, if interim orders have been granted dispensing with the personal appearance of the parties, the immediate difficulty projected by the petitioners regarding their appearance before the concerned Court does not survive at this stage. In such circumstances, the matters are already sub judice before the concerned Bench of this Court. 22. At this stage, if the present matter is considered and the concerned case is withdrawn and transferred, the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court specifically in relation to the pending proceedings before the concerned Court would be affected. This may result in multiplicity of proceedings and may give rise to overlapping jurisdictions. 23. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in both the cases, interim orders are in operation, dispensing with the personal appearance of the parties. Therefore, at this stage, since the subject matter is already pending consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the relief sought in the present petition cannot be considered. 24. Hence, I am not inclined to consider the present relief. This observation is made only in view of the pendency of the subject matter before the Co- 7 ordinate Bench of this Court. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. 25. In the result, the Transfer Criminal petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Dated: 03.09.2026 DSV