APHC010013062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2/2025 Between:

Janyavula Kumari ...PETITIONER AND Mendu Sairam Veera Venkata Naga Sairam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking transfer of C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, or any other competent Court in Krishna District, for trial.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

I. The petitioner is the de-facto-complaint in C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada. After lodging a complaint against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 herein, the Sub-Inspector of Police II Town Police Station, Gudivada, registered a case against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 509 & 109 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C and after completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet vide C.C.No.694 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada and the same is pending for adjudication. She pleaded that she has been residing at Gudivada and the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 are also residing nearby locality at Gudivada and they are having land disputes. She further pleaded that the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 are used to threatened & harassed her and her husband, that they will kill them, if they adduce the evidence against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3, in C.C.No.694 of 2022, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada and that she is constrained to file the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said case is pending for trial. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/de-facto-complainant is that, the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 have been threatening the petitioner/de- facto-complainant and her husband, that they kill them, if they will adduce the evidence against the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid case.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 would contend that the State is having objection to transfer the present case from Gudivada to Machilipatnam. He would further contend that, at the time of transfer of Criminal Case, the convenience of the witnesses has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience caused to the de-facto-complainant and the entire case of prosecution will be looked after by the learned Public Prosecutor of that Court, the presence of the petitioner herein is not at all required, except on the date of giving evidence before the trial Court. He would further contend that the present Transfer Criminal Petition may be dismissed, because it is devoid of any merits.

5. Heard Sri Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

6. Though the notices have been sent to the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same were received by them. But, none appeared for the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3.

7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner herein is a de-facto-complainant, in C.C.No.694 of 2022, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada, which is filed against the respo