APHC010007702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2/2026 Between: 1. SMT SAKE NAGARAJUGARI REKHANANDAKI,, W/O GUNUPUDU RAMU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION DOCTOR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 503 G HEIGHTS, HAFEEZPET, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA 500049. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH SHO PALAKODERU P.S, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU AMARAVATI. 2. SRI GUNUPUDI RAMU, S/O PANDURANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC GOVT EMPLOYEE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RESIDING AT D.NO. ROAD SRUNGAVRUKSHAM, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH pleased to withdraw the C.C.No. 26 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, r Hindupur IA NO: 1 OF 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2/2026 SMT SAKE NAGARAJUGARI REKHANANDAKI,, W/O GUNUPUDU RAMU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION DOCTOR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 503 G-BLOCK, ADITYA IMPERIAL HEIGHTS, HAFEEZPET, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA ...PETITIONER AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH SHO PALAKODERU P.S, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU AMARAVATI. SRI GUNUPUDI RAMU, S/O PANDURANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC GOVT EMPLOYEE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RESIDING AT D.NO. 11/93, NEAR RAILWAY STATION ROAD SRUNGAVRUKSHAM, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 534243. ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to withdraw the C.C.No. 26 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, and transfer the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, r Hindupur IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3606] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR SMT SAKE NAGARAJUGARI REKHANANDAKI,, W/O GUNUPUDU RAMU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION DOCTOR, BLOCK, ADITYA IMPERIAL HEIGHTS, HAFEEZPET, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA- ...PETITIONER OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH SHO PALAKODERU P.S, HIGH COURT SRI GUNUPUDI RAMU, S/O PANDURANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC GOVT EMPLOYEE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE 11/93, NEAR RAILWAY STATION ROAD SRUNGAVRUKSHAM, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to withdraw the C.C.No. 26 of 2021 on the file of I Additional and transfer the same to the 2 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 pleased to stay of all proceedings in C.C.No. 26 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First- Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, pending disposal of the present transfer petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2/2026 ORDER: Smt. Sake Nagarajugari Rekhanandaki filed this application under Section 447 of BNSS, 2023, or under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., seeking relief as follows: “…..to withdraw C.C.No.26 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, and transfer the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur…..” 2. The Respondent No.1 is the State. The Respondent No.2 is Sri Gunupudi Ramu. Notice to the Respondent No.2 was received. But, none appeared for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is represented through the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The facts that lead to filing the present application are as follows: The Petitioner's marriage with Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.12.2014 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Hindupur. Out of wedlock, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were blessed with a female child, Nainika, aged about 9 years. During the marriage, disputes arose between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, leading the Petitioner and her daughter to live separately in Hyderabad with her parents. 4. The Respondent No.2 had perpetuated the acts of cruelty and harassment. As such, the Petitioner had lodged a report which is registered as a crime vide FIR No.297 of 2020 for the offences punishable Sections 354, 324, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “DP Act”) against the Respondent, which is taken into cognizance by the learned I 4 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram vide C.C.No.26 of 2021. The Petitioner has also filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the file of the Family Court at Kukatpally, registered as F.C.O.P.No.399 of 2023. In the said case, Respondent No.2 appeared and filed a counter. In C.C.No.26/2021 the matter is pending for summons to witnesses. 5. While things stood thus, the Respondent No.2, while attending the Family Court at Kukatpally, has threatened the Petitioner that he would see her life if she pursues the criminal case pending at Bhimavaram. He also threatened that he had influence and capacity to handle the case; this led her to feel threatened and to prosecute the case there. She also asserts that the elder sister of Respondent No.2 has given a report against Respondent No.2, which is registered with FIR No.130/2023 on the file of Palakoderu Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 of IPC and charge sheet is also filed. 6. The alleged threat of Respondent No.2 at the Family Court at Kukatpally, coupled with the complaint lodged by the elder sister of Respondent No.2, makes the Petitioner feel that she may be threatened if she adduces her evidence at Courts at Bhimavaram. She has to travel all the way from Hyderabad to the Courts at Bhimavaram with her child. The Respondent No.2 may influence, being native of Bhimavaram. Considering the convenience of the parties the Petitioner prays to withdraw C.C.No.26 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, and transfer it to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. 7. Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner is residing at Hyderabad. She filed this application seeking withdrawal of C.C.No.26 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First-Class 5 Magistrate, Bhimavaram, and transfer of the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. 8. Learned counsel relied on Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India 1 argued that the Petitioner has serious life threat if she attends the proceedings at the Courts at Bhimavaram. Therefore, learned counsel sought to consider the application and allow the petition as prayed for. 9. Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that the stage of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. is summons to the witnesses and trial has not yet commenced in the said case. It would be difficult for the witnesses to travel to Hindupur. Moreover, the Petitioner's presence for every adjournment is not required, except during her examination. No representation has been made before the concerned court regarding the alleged threat to life. 10. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/State. Discussion: 11. This Court noted that despite service of notice, the Respondent No.2 did not make an appearance. The facts show that the Petitioner lodged a complaint at Palakoderu Police Station, West Godavari District, alleging that Respondent No.2 had committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Upon her complaint, the investigation was completed, the charge sheet was filed, and the concerned Court took cognizance of the case and duly registered it. This shows that all the alleged offences were committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court at 1 AIR 2011 SC 1549 6 Bhimavaram. The witnesses were examined at Bhimavaram. The entire criminal investigation was conducted at Bhimavaram. 12. In the affidavit supporting the petition, at para No.3, the Petitioner stated that, due to matrimonial disputes, she and her daughter are living separately at Hyderabad with her parents. It does not disclose the facts that led her to live in Hyderabad with her parents after the report was given at Palakoderu, West Godavari District. She has filed F.C.O.P.No.399 of 2023 for dissolution of marriage at the Family Court, Kukatpally. In the present application, she seeks to withdraw the case from the courts at Bhimavaram and transfer it to Hindupur. But her affidavit reveals that neither she nor her parents reside at Hindupur. Whereas, the Petitioner seeks transfer of C.C.No.26 of 2021 from the Court of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, to the Court at Hindupur. The report is given at palakoderu, and taken cognizance at Bhimavaram. The Petitioner has not explained the reasons of forum convenience for transferring C.C.No.26 of 2021 to the Court at Hindupur, when she does not reside at Hindupur. 13. The ground raised for such transfer is that Respondent No.2 allegedly threatened the Petitioner while he was attending the Family Court at Kukatpally. The Petitioner has nowhere stated the date on which the alleged threat was made. There is no record to show that the Petitioner has made any representation before the Courts at Kukatpally or through the prosecution before the Court at Bhimavaram that she has any alleged threat from the Respondent No.2. Though prior complaint of threat is not mandatory, but if those are taken, the alleged threat would have been attended by the respective authorities, which would be a material for consideration. Instead, the Petitioner relied on the report given by the elder sister of Respondent No.2 against him at Palakoderu Police Station, West Godavari District. 14. This Court is of the view that the said filing of such complaint against Respondent No.2 by his elder sister is a dispute between them. There is no 7 assertion in the affidavit about the role of the Petitioner in the said criminal case either as a witness or otherwise. Assuming she is a witness to the said case, she has to attend the courts in that case at Bhimavaram. Neither there is assertion that, elder sister being a witness in Petitioners criminal case, was threatened. It appears the said case is between those parties. 15. The Petitioner relied on the reason for seeking the relief at para No.9 of her affidavit, that she has an imminent threat to her life if she is required to attend the Court at Bhimavaram to adduce her evidence, and she has to travel all the way with her child. The said contention is not found in any record of making such representation to the prosecution or to the concerned Courts at Kukatpally or Bhimavaram. The Petitioner asserts difficulty travelling from Hyderabad to Bhimavaram with her child. However, she asserts that she can travel to Hindupur along with her child. This is not convincing as to convenience of the Petitioner when she is residing in Hyderabad with the child and her parents. This Court is unable to appreciate the Petitioner's convenience in attending the Court at Hindupur when she does not reside there and has to travel from Hyderabad to attend court at Hindupur. 16. In the case of Nahar Singh Yadav (cited supra) relied on by the Petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “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 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:- 8 (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.” 17. The legal principles laid down are binding. In fact, if applied to the present case, the ruling does not support the Petitioner. The legal position stresses that, as a matter of routine, transfer of trial shall not be passed merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension. The power must be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the factors for consideration, such as when State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, leading to miscarriage of justice; when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; and comparative inconvenience and hardship likely to be caused to the accused or complainant or the witnesses. There should be a communally charged atmosphere and material showing that interference may lead some persons to become hostile. In the present case, the affidavit of 9 Petitioner does not disclose any of these grounds. No assertion is there, nor is there any record that would show that the state machinery or the prosecution acted hand in glove with the accused; nor has the Respondent No.2 placed any such convincing record that the Respondent No.2 asserted any influence over the witnesses of the prosecution or caused the physical harm. 19. In the case of Gurucharan Das Chadha v/s State of Rajasthan2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, “…A case is transferred if a party has a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. The courts must determine whether the apprehension is reasonable. To judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant, but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the court to be reasonable.” 20. In the case of Swaati Nirkhi v/s State (NCT of Delhi)3, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, “….no universal hard and fast rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which will always have to be decided on the facts of each case. A party's convenience may be one of the relevant considerations. Still, it cannot override other considerations, such as the availability of witnesses exclusively at the original place, making it virtually impossible to continue the trial at the place of transfer, and the progress of which would naturally be impeded for reasons at the transferred place of trial. The convenience of the parties does not mean the convenience of the petitioner alone, who approaches the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, the other accused, the 2 AIR 1966 SC 1418 3 (2021) 11 SCC 163 10 witnesses and the larger interest of the society. Early conclusion of the trial becomes much more difficult, involving more expenses for the prosecution by it having to bear travelling expenses of official and non-official witnesses and all of which ultimately causes the trial to linger on for years”. 21. In the present case, this court is unable to find any reasonable material from which this court can infer apprehension except for the allegation that the sister of Respondent No.2 made allegations against him, which, is a distant one and between those parties, does not suffice for consideration in this case. Apart from that, for the Petitioner's convenience, she resides in Hyderabad with her parents and child, not in Hindupur, which would not make it convenient for her to travel to Hindupur from Hyderabad, especially when her parents do not reside in Hindupur. Respondent No.2 is concerned; he would also face difficulty travelling all the way to Hindupur from Bhimavaram. Not only the Respondent, but the entire prosecution witnesses have to travel to Hindupur. Taking these witnesses to the Court at Hindupur would be an undue burden on the prosecution. Further, the affidavit contains no allegation that the witnesses in C.C.No.26 of 2021 were influenced or threatened. 22. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Petitioner has to attend the Court at Bhimavaram only during her evidence, but not day-to-day proceedings. In criminal proceedings, in C.C.No.26 of 2021 the Petitioner is the victim. The Petitioner does not prosecute the case. The State, would prosecute the case to establish the guilt of the Respondent No.2 with its supporting witnesses and investigation. The prosecution would take all steps to protect its witnesses and ensure a fair and easy trial. The Petitioner has a legal remedy, under due process of law, in case of any alleged threat from Respondent No.2 prior to trial or during trial before the concerned court. The concerned courts would assess the matter, and if any such alleged threat is perceived, the concerned courts may issue necessary orders. The courts may, in cases, on consideration of circumstances, permit appearance through virtual mode. The record does not disclose that she has taken any such 11 recourse of representation to the Courts at Bhimavaram or the Court at Kukatpally of alleged threat as a material document for consideration. Even nowhere made any allegations against the prosecution for its failure to prosecute the case fairly. The C.C.No.26 of 2021 is still at the witness summons stage, it appears due to interim orders of stay, and proceedings are stayed. 23. With the above factual aspects and discussion, this Court finds that the Petitioner, having lodged a report at Bhimavaram, made the state machinery investigate and file the charge sheet against Respondent No.2 and get it registered at the Court at Bhimavaram. Now she is residing in Hyderabad with her child and parents, and without any supporting record or legal steps, sought transfer of the case to Hindupur. This, in fact, would cause inconvenience to the Petitioner, prosecution and its witnesses. Even the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner have to travel all the way from Bhimavaram and Hyderabad, respectively, to Hindupur, which is not the parent court of the place of the alleged offence; without any supporting material, the application to withdraw and transfer the trial from one place to a far-distant place is not acceptable. 24. The observations and legal position in the Nahar Singh Yadav case (cited supra) are clear: courts cannot transfer a criminal trial as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed apprehension. The observations in the cases of Gurucharan Das Chadha and Swaati Nirkhi (cited supra), and applying to the present case, the Petitioner's allegations of threat without any basis, and that she is interested in having her matter tried at a far place, at the cost of witnesses and prosecution machinery, do not attract the circumstances for indulgence of this court to consider the application. 25. The Petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before the concerned Court if she faces any alleged threat to life and seek remedy as per 12 the procedure of law including appearance through virtual mode subject to directions of trial Court. 26. With the foregoing discussion and for the reasons above, the petition is devoid of merits for consideration. 27. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 08.09.2026 ARR/DSV 13 80 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2/2026 Dated: 08.09.2026 ARR/DSV