ORDER:

I have heard learned counsel Mr. Chiranjeevi Babu, representing on behalf of Mr. A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi represented for respondent No.1/State.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short “Cr.P.C”) seeking transfer of C.C. No.836 of 2019 from XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District to I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that her marriage with respondent No.2 was solemnised on 31.08.2014 and thereafter, she joined matrimonial home at Visakhapatnam. She also blessed with a son on 26.10.2015, who is now in her care and custody. The petitioner alleged that since the date of marriage, respondent No.2 with the instigation of respondent Nos.3 to 5, harassed her suspecting her fidelity and on demand of additional dowry, due to that on 17.07.2019, she lodged a report before S.H.O., PM Palem Police Station, Vishakhapatnam, who registered the case against respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein after due investigation, S.H.O. filed a chargesheet against respondent Nos.2 to 5 vide C.C. No.836 of 2019 on the file XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that she is residing in her parents’ house at Kadapa District along with her minor son, whereas respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 also migrated to Ballari City of Karnataka State and respondent No.4 is residing at Bangalore of Karnataka State. The main contention of the petitioner is that most of the witnesses as shown in the chargesheet in C.C. No.836 of 2019, are residents of Kadapa District and Ballary town, except LW-6 said to be neighbour and Investigation Officers, due to that it is inconvenient for her to travel all the way from Kadapa District to Visakhapatnam to appear before the Court at Bheemunipatnam. The petitioner submits that she has no relatives or friends at Visakhapatnam. She prays to allow the petition.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing for respondent No.1/State would also submit that most of the witnesses and accused are not residents of Visakhapatnam District, due to that State has no objection for transfer of C.C. No.836 of 2019 on the file XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District to any competent Court at Kadapa District. She prays to pass necessary orders.

5. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.

6. A perusal of records, which prima facie shows that when the petitioner/informant, who is said to be residing along with respondent No.2/husband lodged a report before S.H.O., PM Palem Police Station against the respondent Nos.2 to 5, who registered the case and filed chargesheet after due investigation.

Admittedly, now informant and most of the witnesses except LW-6 and Investigation Officers are not residents of Visakhapatnam, even respondent Nos.2 to 5 are also not residing at Visakhapatnam, due to that certainly, it is difficult for prosecution to secure the presence of witnesses and accused when the case is pending at Visakhapatnam. Even State has also no objection for considering the request of the petitioner to transfer the case.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav Vs.

Union of India1, held at para 29 which reads as under:-

"29. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 CrPC should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of subsections (2) and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interest