The High Court · 2025

5. The State of Telangana, Rep, by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 447 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Htgh Court may be pleased to transfer the criminal case C.C.No. 289 ol 2023 on the file of Junior Civit J udge-cu m-J udicial Magistrate of First Class, at. Dubbak, Siddipet District to the court of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan /agistrate Court, Secunderabad or any other equal jurisdictional court at Secunderabad or Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 447(6) of BNSS praying that rn he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer Criminirl petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C r r 289 of 2023 on the file of the Junior Civil J udge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate f First Class, at. Dubbak, Siddipet District. TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 97 OF 2( 25 Between Ms. Seetha Jyothi, Wo K Prasad D/o S Bala Mallu, Arl )d. 28 years, Occ. Housewife C/o K Kalyan Shashidha Plot- l 1 , 1st floor, Prl / r Colony. Phase-2, Kakaguda, Karkhana Secunderabad-50001 5. ...PETITIONE R/COMPLAINANT AND 1 Karingula Prasad, S/o Anjaiah Aged. 33 years, Occ. F /t. Employee, R/o Upparapally village. Doulthabad tvlandal, Siddipet District. Karingula Jayamma, Wo An.laiah Aged. 55 years, Oc( House wife, R/o Upparapally village. Doulthabad Mandal, Siddipet Diskict. Karingula Anjaiah, S/o Pochaiah Aged. 65 years, Oc: Agriculture, R/ o Upparapally village. Doulthabad Mandal, Siddipet Diskict. Karingula Praveen, S/o Anjaiah Aged. 35 years, Occ. Sofly are Employee, R/o Upparapally village. Doulthabad Mandal, Siddipet District. Karingula Suhasini, Wo Praveen Aged- 32 years, Occ. l'vt. Employee, R/o Upparapally village. Doulthabad Mandal, Siddipet District.

6. Karingula Srikanth, S/o Anjaiah Aged. 30 years, Occ. F vt. Employee, R/o Upparapally village. Doulthabad Mandal, Siddipet District.

7. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High ( iourt of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPOl,l )ENTS/ACCUSED Petrtion under Section 447 of BNSS praying that in he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the 11 gh Court may be pleased to transfer the criminal petition rn C.C.No. 202 ot 2119 on the file of Junior Civil J ud ge-cu m-J udicial Magistrate of First Class, a:. Dubbak, Siddipet District to the court of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan l\4agistrate Court, Secunderabad or any other equal jurisdictional court at Secunderabad or Hyderabad. 2 3 4 5 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 202 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at. Dubbak, Siddipet District Counsel for the Petitioner in both Cases : Sri Shanthi Kumar Hari Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6 in Trclp No.97 and 1 to 4in Trclp 96/25: Alluri Divakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 in TRCRLP No. 96 of 2025 and for Respondent No. 7 in TRCRLP No. 97 of 2025 : Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL T,NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JI,'STICE K. SU.J INA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.96 &9'; of 2o25 DATE: O1.12.2025 BETWEEN: Ms. Sectha Jl othi .petitioner,/ (l >mplainant And Karingula Prasad and others .....Responder ts/ accused COMMON ORDER These Transfer Criminal Petitions are fu ed by the petitioner to transfer C-C.No.289 of 2023 and 2O'-Z of 2019 on the hle of thc iearned Junior Civil Judge-<:' rm-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak, Siddipet Distr r t to the frle of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitar Magistrate, Secunderabad. 2 sr{s,J Tr.Crl.P.[os.96 & 97 of 2025

2. Heard Sri Shanti K. Hari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Fublic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner faced life threats whenever she appeared before the Dubbak court and that the accused, being locally influential, had obstructed the progress of the cases, resulting in abnormal and unexplained delay in service of summons and conduct of trial. He contended that despite the lapse of several years, the matters had not progressed, multiple adjournments 'were granted without justification, and the delay appeared to be influenced by extraneous considerations and that the petitioner, being a victim of serious offences, suffered grave prejudice. Therefore, he prayed the Court to [ransfer the cases from Dubbak to Secunderabad.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner were exaggerated, unfounded, and intended only to malign the 3 SKS,J Tr.Crl.P.No! . 6 & 97 of 2025 respondents and delay the proceedings and that mere apprehension or vague allegations of influence or t rreat could not be grounds for transfer and that the Dubbal court had been conductirrg the case in accordance with larv He further submitted that the petitioner had already initiat :d multiple proceedings on the same set of allegations, and ' he transfer petition was only a tactic to forum-shop and :rarass the respondents. Therefore, he prayed the Court to iismiss the Transfer Cri minal Petitions.

5. In the light of the submissions made lr ' both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material , vailable on record, it appears that though the petitioner expressed apprehension regarding her safety and alleged r elay in the proceedings, the respondents have denied all sucl allegations and asserted that the trial has been proceeding in accordance with law and that the petitioner herself has contri ruted to the delay by not appearing before the Court reguler ly. It also appears that mere apprehensions, without any srl >stantiating rnaterial, cannot be a sole ground for transfer of he cases at this stage. l l i l 4 sl{s,J Tr.Crl.P.Nos.96 & 97 of 2025

6. Accordingly, these Transfer Criminal petitions are disposed of. The appearance of the petitioner is not required on evcry date of adjournment. Considering that the Calendar Cases are of the year 2O19 and 2023, tlne trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at the earliest. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for disposal of the same. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil J udge-cum-Jud icial Magistrate of First Class, at. Dubbak, Siddipet Diskict

2. The Station House Officer, Thoguta Police Station, Siddipet District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Shanthi Kumar Hari, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies WYPSL w HIGH COURT DATED: 0111212025 COMMON ORDER TRCRLP.No.96 and 97 ot 2025 F HES,^E t\.- r,i\. C, o. i9'..i yl jiitl illlr * t'l .?ea i.:t: DISPOSING OF BOTH TRCRLP'S 4 -qol' @Y w.:9 --1o\,,