The main legal point established in the judgment is the cautious exercise of power to transfer a trial under Sec. 407 of Cr.P.C, considering the comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the parties and witnesses.

JUDGMENT

1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Ms.T.V.Sridevi as well as learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr.Raja Reddy, Koneti.

2. This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'Cr.P.C'), seeking transfer of SC No.27 of 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court at Amalapuram to Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam or to any other competent Court at Visakhapatnam.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that her marriage with the 1st respondent solemnized on 24/5/2014 in a hotel at Visakhapatnam, and at that time her parents gave a dowry to the 1st respondent. The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent used to take all her earnings while she was working at Vijeta Hospital, Visakhapatnam and then in the month of March, 2018 the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have demanded additional dowry of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 from her parents', which they could not fulfil. Then, the 1st respondent got employment at Area Hospital, Amalapuram, where he worked for few days and started harassing her to sell the flat at Kommadi of Visakhapatnam. It is also the contention of the petitioner that on 28/4/2019 the 1st respondent abused her in filthy language for not accepting his proposal to sell the flat at Kommadi, and then after returning to the house, he abused her along with his parents, beat her and attempted to kill her. Then, the petitioner lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Police Station, vide Crime No.126 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 307 read with 109 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the basis of said report, the Station House Officer investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 307 read with 109 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is subject matter in SC No.27 of 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Amalapuram. The petitioner further submits that she filed DVC No.138 of 2022 before II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and filed suit for recovery of amounts and articles, which is pending registration before Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The main contention of the petitioner is that SC No.27 of 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Amalapuram is coming up for trial, wherein out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses are residents of Visakhapatnam, who are LW.6, LW.8, LW.9, LW.12, LW.16, LW.17, LW.18, LW.19, LW.20, LW.22 and LW.23, who are senior citizens, they are not in a position to come down to Amalapuram to depose before the Court and if they failed to attend the Court at Amalapuram to give evidence, there will not be any fair trial and it will affect her case. She also stated that at the time of registration of the case, the 1st respondent was working as Government Doctor in Area Hospital at Amalapuram, where he has got support and influence, and whenever she is attending the Court at Amalapuram, the 1st respondent is threatening her to withdraw the case. She also submits that at present, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are also residing at Visakhapatnam and at present the 1st respondent is working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Kotauratla, Anakapalli District and attending the duties by residing at Visakhapatnam, who is also attending the Court in DVC case, due to that if Sessions case is transferred to Visakhapatnam, there will not be any prejudice or inconvenience to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 or to the witnesses, and it will meet the ends of justice. She prays to allow the petition.

4. The 1st respondent filed counter, denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner, which is adopted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, . It is the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner is wilfully and wantonly avoiding to appear the Court