IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the transfer of criminal cases under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. requires exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

ORDER :

1. I have heard learned counsel, Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam representing on behalf of Smt. A. Padma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Raj Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr. P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr. P.C.”) seeking transfer of C.C. No. 328 of 2016 from the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Hindupur to Special Judge for Trial of Cases of SC’s and ST’s (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Ananthapuramu. The case of the petitioners in brief is that there is a dispute with regard to the agricultural land between themselves and R2 to R5 and then R2 to R5 filed O.S. No. 194 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur, claiming right over the agricultural land and the said suit was dismissed, against which they preferred appeal before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur, which was also dismissed. The petitioners submit that on 21.07.2015 R2 to R5 violated the Decree and Judgment in O.S. No. 144 of 2001 and trespassed into the agricultural land and obstructed their possession, due to that they lodged a report before SHO, Lepakshi Police Station vide Cr. No. 63 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC, wherein SHO after due investigation filed charge sheet against R2 to R5 vide C.C. No. 328 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, wherein trial of the case is not yet commenced. It is also the contention of the petitioners that as a counter R2 to R5 have lodged a report against them on 13.10.2015 vide Cr. No. 51 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 379 r/w 34 IPC and Section and 3 (1) (8) (4) of SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, which is pending as S.C. No. 20 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of SC, ST cases, Ananthapuramu, wherein also trial is not yet commenced. The main contention of the petitioners is that in C.C. No. 328 of 2016 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur and S.C. No. 20 of 2018 pending on the file of Special Judge, Ananthapuramu, the subject matter is agricultural land in Sy. No. 7/2 to an extent of Ac.4-90 cents and parties in both cases are one and the same, due to that instead of conducting trial in different Courts and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they sought transfer of C.C. No. 328 of 2016 from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Hindupur to Special Court at Ananthapuramu by filing transfer petition before District Judge, which was dismissed without considering the factual aspects. It is also the contention of the petitioners that subject matter and dispute and parties in both cases are one and the same, due to that both have to be tried by Special Court to avoid conflicting decisions. They pray to allow the petition.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners would submit that dispute between the parties in respect of agricultural land and accused and witnesses in both the cases are common, as the petitioners herein are accused in S.C. No. 20 of 2018, whereas R2 to R5 are accused in C.C. No. 328 of 2016 wherein petitioners are witnesses. She would further submit that though alleged incident said to be occurred on different dates, when parties contentions of both sides are same, both cases have to be tried and disposed of by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions. She prays to allow the petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter-affidavit with regard to the facts of the case and finally prays to pass appropriate orders.

5. Learned counsel for R2 though not filed counter-affidavit opposed the contention of the petitioners on the ground that incidents in both cases are not similar to consider that both cases are the case and counter case to be tried by the same Court. He would further submit that learned Princi