B NAGULAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. B V APARNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 40/2026 ORDER: The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to transfer C.C.No.598 of 2018, on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, to the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula, for trial and disposal.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.598 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. The petitioners pleaded that, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, respondent No.1/Police registered a case and filed a charge sheet before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioners further pleaded that petitioner No.1 is a chronic patient suffering from diabetes and has undergone surgical intervention for infected phimosis, which was further complicated by multiple fistulas. Owing to the ill health, petitioner No.1 is unable to attend the proceedings before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. As petitioner No.1 is hospitalized, medical practitioners have advised him to take bed rest in view of his uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, with fasting blood sugar recorded at 334 mg/dl. Consequently, his health has been severely impaired and deteriorating, and the petitioners have filed the present application to transfer C.C.No.598 of 4 2018, from the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, to the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Pulivendula.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent No.1/State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The grounds urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of the case from Tirupathi to Pulivendula is that petitioner No.1 is a chronic patient suffering from diabetes and the distance between Tirupathi and Thondur Village, near Pulivendula is approximately 120 kms and that the petitioner No.1 is unable to attend the Court at Tirupathi which is situated beyond 100 kms. Therefore, the petitioners herein are seeking transfer of the case from Tirupathi to Pulivendula on health grounds suffered by petitioner No.1.

5. As could be seen from the material on record, C.C.No.598 of 2018 is pending before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi and the present case is at the stage of examination of the accused. Though eight years have elapsed, the stage of case of C.C.No.598 of 2018 is examination of accused. The examination of the accused has not been conducted under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by the trial Court and the criminal case has been pending for eight years. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Station House Officer, Tirupathi registered a case and, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Jurisdictional Court, and the same has been pending before the said Court. 5

6. The purpose of a criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of the trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek to transfer the case under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)/Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The law is well settled that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action and the alleged offence, as per the ‘First Information Report’, are alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court. The criminal case has been pending before the jurisdictional court since eight years and there is no progress in the said case and the stage of the said case is at examination of the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

7. As noted supra, the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners to transfer the case are that, petitioner No.1 is suffering from health issues and petitioner No.2 is working as Anganwadi worker at Pulivendula, and both the petitioners sought transfer of the case from Tirupathi to Pulivendula. It is settled that no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties, including the witnesses to be produced at the trial, is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. As could be seen from the charge sheet filed by the Police, witness No.1 is a victim and she has been residing at Tirupati and 6 all the four material witnesses are residing at Tirupathi within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi. Furthermore, the convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of petitioners/accused alone, who have approached the Court for seeking transfer of a case from one place to another. Convenience, for the purposes of transfer, means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses, and the larger interest of society.

8. As noted supra, the material witnesses i.e., the victim and the eye witness are residing within the jurisdiction of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. On the sole ground that petitioner No.1 is suffering from health issues, the case which is pending for eight years before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, cannot be transferred to a place which is situated at more than 100 kms. In case, if the present application filed is considered, the victim and all the material witnesses will suffer severe problems, they have to travel a distance of beyond 100 kms. As noticed supra, on the health ground alone, petitioner No.1 herein is seeking transfer of the case from Tirupathi to Pulivendula. In such circumstances, the criminal case cannot be transferred to some other place which is situated at a distance of more than 100 kms, at the request of accused. The petitioners have to seek their legal remedies before the trial court for condoning their absence if necessity arises.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer the C.C.No.598 of 2018 from the file of 7 learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, to the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula.

10. Since C.C.No.598 of 2018 has been pending for eight years before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, without any progress, therefore, this Court is of the considered view to direct the trial Court to dispose of C.C.No.598 of 2018 within three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order.

11. In the result, this Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.598 of 2018, within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and report the compliance to the Registry. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim Order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 16.03.2026 Note: issue CC by 18.03.2026 B/o. JLSR/MH 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 30 TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.40 of 2026 Date: 16.03.2026 Issue CC by 18.03.2026 B/o. JLSR/MH