THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.01 of 2026

ORDER:

The petitioner/complainant herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS, 2023.’), seeking to withdraw C.C.No.133 of 2023, on the file of 1^st Additional Judicial Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and the transfer the same to any other competent Court at Pithapuram, East Godavari District, for trial and disposal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C. No.133 of 2023. The private complaint has been instituted by the petitioner/complainant vide C.C. No.133 of 2023 before the jurisdictional Court, i.e., the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, and the same is pending since 2023 for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No.133 of 2023, while appearing before the concerned Court, the respondent used to threaten the complainant and that a complaint was also sent to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari District through post. He would submit that the petitioner also enclosed a copy of the said complaint along with the present Transfer Criminal Petition in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that no first information report has been registered by the concerned police till so far, and that the petitioner herein has also not filed any protest petition before the concerned Magistrate.

4. The material on record further reveals that the petitioner herein, who is a complainant under C.C. No.133 of 2023, has herself chosen the jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate at Narsapuram, West Godavari District, where the alleged offence has taken place. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses in the said C.C. No.133 of 2023 are residing within the East Godavari District. As seen from the copy of the complaint enclosed with the grounds of this Transfer Criminal Petition, the 1^st witness is the complainant herein, the 2^nd witness is none other than the father of the petitioner, and the 3^rd witness is the husband of the petitioner. The other two witnesses, i.e., witnesses 4 and 5, are residing in the West Godavari District at where the case is pending. Furthermore, the trial in this case has not been commenced, and the said case has been instituted in the year 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Chawla v.

Union of India, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 615

6. In the case at hand, that the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No.133 of 2023, has invited the jurisdiction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence has taken place. In the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. C.B.I. & Ors, 2012 (4) SCC 217 ., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Often, either the complainant or the accused has to travel across an entire State to attend criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. Likewise, witnesses too may have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring cases from one court to another, on the basis of the time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial, is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience is inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned and is not