ORDER:

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr.

Yalamanchili Phani Babu and the learned counsel Ms. C.Indrani represented on behalf of Mr. Jupudi V K Yagna Dutt, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A9 under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C) seeking transfer of C.C.No.166/2022 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, at Narasaraopet of Guntur District, to any other competent Court in between Guntur District and Srikakulam District.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners submit that due to disputes in matrimonial life, Respondent No.2 lodged false complaint against them before Station House Officer, II Town Police Station at Narasaraopet, who registered the same as Crime No.277 of 2021, dated 01.11.2021, and after due investigation filed Charge Sheet which was also taken on file as C.C.No.166/2022 for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A, 494 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that allegations made in the Charge Sheet, as per 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses are very vague and petitioners No.2 to 9 are family members and relatives of petitioner No.1 who are no way connected to the alleged incident as the marriage between 1st petitioner and Respondent No.2 is a love marriage which took place at Hyderabad and none of the petitioners No.2,3,5,7,8,9 attended the marriage and thereafter, the 1st petitioner and Respondent No.2 stayed at Hyderabad only.

5. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners No.2, 3, and 9 are aged persons, they are not in a position to attend the Court at Narasaraopet by travelling from different far of places. The main contention of the petitioners is that whenever they attend the Court at Narasaraopet, one of the relative of Respondent No.2 who is the former Corporator in Narasaraopet by influencing the local police threatening them with the help of their henchmen due to that the 1st petitioner also filed four Writ Petitions before this Court and they have got threat to their lives if they attend Court at Narasaraopet. They pray to allow the petition.

6. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that though no incident occurred at Narasaraopet, Respondent No.2 lodged a false report against the petitioners. He would further submit that petitioners No.2 to 9 who are nothing to do with alleged disputes between 1st petitioner and Respondent No.2 as the marriage between them is a love marriage which took place at Hyderabad and no point of time, petitioners No.2 to 9 and petitioner No.1 harassed Respondent No.2 on alleged demand of additional dowry. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when petitioners attended before Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Narasaraopet to receive notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C, at that time the relatives of Respondent No.2 and others chased their vehicle and attacked them, then immediately they went to Police Station, but they failed to take any action though incident occurred in a broad day light. He prays to allow the petition.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Jagadeswara Rao, representing Respondent No.1 would submit that they are denying the allegations made against the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Narasaraopet.

8. He would further submit that if the petitioners are having any apprehension to attend before the Court at Narasaraopet, certainly, Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Narasaraopet, will provide necessary protection as per procedure laid down under law. He prays to dismiss the petition.

9. The learned counsel representing Respondent No.2 would submit that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer the case when most of the witnes