Mere apprehension of bias or prejudice is not sufficient to justify transfer of a case. There must be a reasonable apprehension based on concrete evidence or circumstances.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting to withdraw C.C. No. 417 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to any other Court competent to try the same.

2. Heard Sri N. Ashwiani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

3. The facts, as stated in the affidavit filed by the 2nd petitioner, on behalf of the petitioners 2 to 4, in brief, are: On 03.11.2017, all the petitioners/accused have colluded and threatened the 2nd respondent who is their father, for partition of the property, and have allegedly not allowed the 2nd respondent to enter into his house and threatened to kill him with dire consequences. The 2nd respondent herein submitted complaint, dated 03.12.2017 before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent lodged FIR in Crime No. 493 of 2017 against the petitioners. The 1st respondent, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC. While, the 1st petitioner/accused died during the pendency of the trial and the rest of the petitioners are facing the trial. The de facto complainant is none other than the father of petitioners 1 & 2 and father-in-law of petitioners 3 & 4. Previously, petitioners 1 & 2/A1 & A2 filed a suit in O.S. No. 358 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the de facto complainant and two others seeking partition and recovery of certain amounts. FIR No. 493 of 2017 of M.V.P. Police Station, Visakhapatnam, is a counter blast case filed by the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 417 of 2018 to O.S. No. 358 of 2017. Petitioners 1 & 2/A1 and A2 filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 586 of 2018 on the file of Court of XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing Document No. 426/2017, dated 05.07.2017, registered in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, which is brought into existence by fraudulent means. PW2 in C.C. No. 417 of 2018 also filed suit against A1 in O.S. No. 50 of 2019 which is pending on the file of the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. He also filed O.S. No. 56 of 2019 on the file of the same Court. PW1 in the present case filed W.P. No. 3323 of 2017 on the file of this Court against the police.

3(b). In the aforesaid background facts, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that during trial in C.C. No. 417 of 2018, the learned Magistrate is not allowing the defence counsel to confront with improvements, variations, contradictions made in and from written statements, police report filed before this Court etc. from other documents. The learned Magistrate is not even allowing the defence counsel to make suggestions relating to the civil dispute. With great difficulty, the defence counsel completed cross-examination of PW1 and marking of certain documents. On 01.12.2021, the learned Magistrate did not allow the defence counsel to confront PW2 with certain statements made by him. The petitioners filed Transfer Crl. M.P. No. 1 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking transfer of C.C. No. 417 of 2018. By order, dated 22.02.2022, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the said petition. According to the petitioners, unless C.C. No. 417 of 2018 is transferred to any other Court competent to try the same, petitioners would be subjected to serious prejudice and right to fair trial would be violated. Hence, the present transfer criminal petition is filed.

4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court is not allowing proper cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution and thus, there is no fair trial allowed