THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.98 of 2023

ORDER:

The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to withdraw C.C.No.569 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Srikakulam.

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

I. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.2 is performed on 06.07.2014 at Bulgam and they used to reside at Visakhapatnam. Due to harassment made by the respondent No.2 and his family members the petitioner is staying at her parents’ house at Parlakhemudi, Odisha State. The petitioner pleaded the she had lodged a complaint before the SHO/women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City vide FIR No.76 of 2016, under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of the investigation, the same was numbered as C.C.No.569 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

II. The contention of the petitioner is that in between both the parties, around six (06) cases are pending at Parlakhemudi, Odisha State and as such the petitioner filed the present Transfer Criminal Petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.569 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, which is nearer to Parlakhemudi, Odisha State. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contend that if the case in C.C.No.569 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam is transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathapatnam in Srikakulam District, it would be convenient to both the parties for attending the case proceedings before the Court at Pathapatnam.

3. Heard Sri P.Vimala Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein a case in Cr.No.76 of 2016, under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered by the SHO/Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam and after completion of the investigation the Police had filed Charge Sheet vide C.C.No.569 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. The learned Public Prosecutor would further contend that there are two independent witnesses, who are cited as the witness Nos.4 and 5 in the Charge Sheet and are residing at Visakhapatnam. Further, the distance between Visakhapatnam and Pathapatnam is at about 150kms and as such it is very difficult for the independent witnesses to attend the case proceedings, if the case in C.C.No.569 of 2017 is transferred from the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam to Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, T.N Vs. State of T.N and Ors.¹, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“25. The next question which arises for consideration is as to where the sessions case should be transferred. Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the case may be transferred to any adjoining district like Chittoor, Nellore, Cuddapah or Tirupati in the State of Andhra Pradesh as about one-third of the judicial officers in the said State and particularly in the aforesaid districts are conversant with Tamil language. It is also submitted that in view of Section 277 Cr.P.C. if the witness does not give statement in the language of the Court, a translation of the evidence in the language of the Court has to be prepared as the