THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4 of 2026

ORDER:

The petitioner/de-facto complainant has filed the present petition under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking to set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, in Tr.Crl.P.No.28 of 2024, and to transfer C.C.No.344 of 2017, on the file of the learned Additional Special Magistrate, Vijayawada, to any other Magistrate Court in Vijayawada for trial and disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of C.C.No.344 of 2017, from the file of the learned Additional Special Magistrate, Vijayawada, to any other Magistrate Court in Vijayawada, are that the petitioner has no faith in the trial Court, as two petitions filed by her were not considered by the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said two petitions were disposed of in the year 2024 by the trial Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that no revision has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the said two miscellaneous petitions. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant.

5. As can be seen from the charge sheet, the petitioner/de facto complainant was examined before the trial Court as P.W.1, her husband was also examined as P.W.2 before the learned Magistrate, Vijayawada.

The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors, 2011 (1) SCC 307 held as follows:

“24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (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 interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:

(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the

prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-

official witnesses;

(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.”

6. As can be seen from the material available on record, the ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer is that she has no faith in the Judicial Officer of the trial Court, as two petitions filed by her were not considered by the learned Magistrate. Admittedly, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate have not been challenged by the petitioner by filing revisions before the appropriate Court. The law is well settled that mere apprehension, without any basis, is not a ground for seeking transfer. A bold allegation against the Presiding Of