The convenience and inconvenience of the parties must be considered in transfer petitions, and the current residence and filing of cases in a particular jurisdiction can influence the decision to transfer a case.

ORDER :

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. N. Siva Reddy, as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. G. Rama Gopal.

2. 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.244 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Palakonda, to any other Courts of equivalent jurisdiction in or around Visakhapatnam.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they arrayed as an accused in C.C.No.244 of 2021 on a report lodged by respondent No.2, who is wife of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners submit that respondent No.2, on her behalf and also on behalf of minor child filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in F.C.O.P. No.2331 of 2021 before Family Court -cum- V Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam and thereafter, she lodged a report before SHO, Seethampet Police Station on the ground that her father is working at Seethampet, the 1st petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No.2331 of 2021 against respondent No.2 under Section 9 of Hindu marriage act for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The main contention of the petitioners is that though respondent No.2 is residing at Visakhapatnam, she has shown her residential address at Visakhapatnam in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., chosen to file complaint before SHO, Sithampet Police Station at the instance of her father, who is having influence and when he attended the Court at Palakonda, father of respondent No.2 and some officials have threatened him. They pray to allow the petition.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying allegations made in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in F.C.O.P. No.2331 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam, which is pending by showing her residential address as Visakhapatnam, as she is residing in her parents’ house to attend her job (work from home) and she lodged a report before SHO, Seethampet Police Station as her father is working there where she also resided which place is within the jurisdiction of SHO, Sithampet Police Station, which is permissible under law. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that the petitioners having obtained interim orders for dispensing with attendance of A-2 & A-3, came up with this petition with false allegations, which is not maintainable. She prays to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 having chosen to file petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before Family Court wherein she has shown her residential address at Visakhapatnam, who also received notice in the present transfer criminal petition at Visakhapatnam, chosen to file false complaint before SHO, Seethampet Police Station, where her father is working, who has influenced the police and got registered a false case against the petitioners. He would further submit that even after filing of the present transfer petition by the petitioners, respondent No.2 chosen to file domestic violence case against the petitioners at Visakhapatnam, where now she is residing in her parents’ house. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is having threat to his life as when he attended the Court at Palakonda, some officials and police have threatened him. He prays to allow the petition.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no bar for respondent No.2 filing report before SHO Sithampet Police Station, where her father is working which is permissible under Section 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He would further submit that it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is residing in her parents’ house, who also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, 1st petitioner filed petition for restitut