Mere apprehension is not a ground for transfer; there must be reasonable apprehension that trial would be seriously undermined and justice would not be done.

ORDER :

1. This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking transfer of C.C.No.302 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, East Godavari District to any other competent Court in another District.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Ravulapalem Police Station against the petitioners herein which is registered as FIR No.03 of 2013 dated 05.01.2013 alleging that Managing Director of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Pvt. Ltd., and others committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They submit that as per allegation in the complaint, respondent No.2 is the Managing Director of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Pvt. Ltd., which is incorporated on 19.04.1988, engaged in the business of infrastructure development who appointed M/s. JBRK & Co., a Chartered Accountants firm as its auditors on 30.08.2008 for the financial year 2007- 2008 and Sri M.V.S. Ramu, i.e. the 1st petitioner herein and Mr. J. Praveen, are Chartered Accountants and partners of the firm. Respondent No.2 alleged that upon the advice of 1st petitioner, they issued Rs.1,50,000/- equity shares to 2nd petitioner and Rs.1,39,402 to Mr. Ratna Prasad Hanumantha Varjula, who later joined in the company as an Additional Director along with one Mr. Vidyasri Bhaskar Adabala on 05.04.2011.

3. The main contention of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 proceeded with the investigation on a report lodged by respondent No.2 and then LW-11, Inspector of Police conducted an investigation, who examined four (04) witnesses, recorded their statements and seized relevant documents and thereafter respondent No.1 completed the investigation and filed chargesheet which was taken on file as C.C. No.302 of 2015 pending on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, East Godavari District. It is also the contention of the petitioners that when petitioner Nos.3 and 4 approached this Court to quash the chargesheet against them by filing Criminal Petition No.8884 of 2015, wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 23.09.2015, by granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice by directing the learned Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders. The petitioners submit that then petitioners Nos.1 and 2 herein filed Crl.P. No.12835 of 2015 before this Court for quashment of the chargesheet which was dismissed vide its orders dated 03.05.2023. The main contention of the petitioners is that during the trial in C.C. No.302 of 2015, respondent No.2/complainant herein threatened them with dire consequences, due to that they are seeking transfer of C.C. No.302 of 2015 from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothapeta, East Godavari District to any other competent Court in another District. The petitioners also alleged that previously, respondent No.2 indulged in offences which is subject matter of Crime No.70 of 2012 of Anaparthi Police Station and alleged that the said incident made them to file present petition seeking for transfer, as they are apprehending danger to their life, if they attend the Court at Kothapeta of East Godavari District.

4. I have heard learned counsel, Mr Satya representing on behalf of Mr N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr K Satyananda, representing on behalf of Mr. T.V. Jaggireddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioners would submit that a false case has been registered against the petitioners and then petitioners have filed petition to quash the proceedings and previously this Court by granting interim stay dispensed with their attendance, due to that the petitioners have not attended the Court at Kothapeta and thereafter petition filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings was dismi