The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in GRLA No. 20 of 2023 on the file of the iearned VI Additional district and Sessions Judge at Sathupally Khammam District, pending final disposal of the above Transfer Petition l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Between: Chava Ram Mohan Rao, S/o Chava Venkata Narsaiah. Hrndu. Aged about 43 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rio Veerullapadu V and M' NTR Dist, A.P. Pin 521 17O (Aocused) ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2 lN Tr.Crl.P. AND 1 . Chavir l\r :trr;r, W7o Chava Venkat Rao, Aged 5g years t)cr _ Housewife, R/o. Veerullap,:trr post and Mandal Village V and M_ NTR Diskrct. .PETiTII]N ER IN TR.CRL.P. 2. State :f T.::langana, Represented by public proseculor, High Court Buildings, Hyderab,a,l ...RESpONDENT No,1 Tr.Crt.p. Petitrcn u'rr r:r Section 15'r cpc praying that in ther crrcum,;tances stated in the affidavit frler: r,-r support o^f the peiitio;, ine Hlgn Court me y b" pl";;;;i. vacate the lnterir-r order dt.23t\1t2O2S passed in Tr.6d,pat.No.4 ,t ZOZs. l.A. NO: 3 Ot: 20 2ti Petitrorr r.,)(l,rr Section 52g of BNSS praying th,t in th: circumstances -tr" stated rn thr' irl ,rc ;rvrt filed in support of tne petiti6n, :he, l trglr Corrt .rf gle?1ed to E<rr,r,J the Stay granted on23tO1t2O2S in the above_"-,rnri.i f"tiiion TRCRI P No . ( i ) )25. lrli further orders This Petrtrr:rr comtng on for hearing, upon perusi,ig the |/emorandum of Grounds of c rrrn r rr petiti6n and upon n"Jiing it"-;gunrents of Sri G. Narender Raj. Advocat': ic r irre petitioner and Mr. syei vasar'uamoor . l\dditronar pubric Prosecutor orr l;r.helf of the Respondent trto.t ,nJ of U|. T. Aditr..a, naro.at" f* the Respond()- ' l'l( :2 The Court madc tl-e following: ORDER THE IIONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4 of 2025 ORDER: This transfer criminal petition is frled under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by the petitioner/victim seeking withdraw Crl.A.No.2O of 2023 from the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam, and transfer the same to any competent Court situated either at Khammam or Hyderabad.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this transfer criminal petition brie[Iy stated are that the petitioner moved to Hyderabad in 2O09 in view of her daughter's education and employment and the petitioner handed over her aged mother-in-law namely Ch. Anasuyamma to respondent No.2 to look after her, since he was looking after their agricultural lands for long time. Taking advantage of the same, respondent No.2 fraudulently got the sale deed registered in his favour by playing fraud and accordingly breach of trust was committed on her by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint before Madira Police Station against respondent No.2. The Investigating Ofhcer after conducting investigation hled charge sheet and the same was 2 numberer,l r'r:) C.C.Nc.682 of 2O16 for the offenr:e undi,r Section 406 read with 4.'.2:t of the Indian penal Code, 1g60 (lp(l) on the file of the Principal J.r .nor Civil Judge cum-Judicial First Clar;s Magistrate, Madhira. I'.1 i:mmam District and the learned .turlge acquitted respond,l: t ir o.:2 for the above said offence.

2.7. Agqrit v:rl by the same, the petitioner hled C rl.A.No.2O of 2023 anl thc s:rme is pending before the VI AddirLonal District and Sessions ., r r d gr: at Sathupally, Khammam l.h:reafter, the petitioner :llr-'l arl.T.p.No.6 of 2024 before the Frincrpel District and Sessions -ful l,:, Kha-mmao, seeking transfer of C::1._\.I.tro.2O af 2023 from the t,-r',r r-t o[ VI Additional District and Sessic,ns Judge at Sathupalll'. I(f ammam, to an_v of the Cou-rt of Sess:orrs situated at Khammanr :,r rl r he same rvas dismissed on 28.I l.2tc2t .

2.2. Agglie,.,.q b-v the same, the petitione:: fiierl the present tralsfer r)r'irr in al petition, w.here in it is averreri that she engaged counsel zrt l lr clerabad, who is aged 70 years .arcl he is suffering from lo-"v,:r' :rr.:L: pain problems and old age<l ,ailmt,nts arrd he informed to lre r that it is not possible to him to :ra..,,€l t) Sathupally and contt:sr :;r:: appeal in view of his health :onditirrns and the petitioner [ru |ir:r averred that she is also interr:steC to participate in the app,qrll |r'oceedings orr her ou,n interest and see is presenLiy ,) residing at Hyderabad and she has been suffering from serious diabetic problem. The petitioner also averred that respondent No'2 is resident of Veerlapadu Village and Mandal, NTR District, and Sathupally is not convenient to him and also to his counsel and if the matter is transferred to Sathupally to Khammam or Hyderabad, no prejudice is going to be caused to respondent No'2

3. Heard Mr. G. Narender Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr. T. Aditya, Iearned counsel for respondent No'2 and Mr'Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 State. 4 . Learned cor.rnsel for petitioner is a victim and the petitioner submitted that the housewife arrd. she is residing in Hyderabad since 20O9 and she is suffering with age old ailments and it is very d.iflicult to travel from Hyderabad to Sathupally to proseclrte the proceedings in Cr1.A.N o.2O of 2C23 ' As per Section aO7 @l of the Code of Cri-rninal Procedure, 1973 (Cr'P'C')' the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer of the case basing on the convenience of the parties. He further submitted that though the petitioner sought tralsfer on the other ground that she engaged counsel at Hyderabad, who is suffering from lower back pain problems q5td.old aged ailments and it is not possible to him to L 4 travef to Sia:hupally in view of his health r:onclrti<.ns, however, learned o.),.. l-siel submitted that the petitionei- is rLot pressing the said grorr lt c1

4.t In :;rr1rJ'ort of his contention, he relied u:rot ._ht juclgment of the Hon'trle 'qupreme court in Neeram Kanwal v. De.uinder singh Kanwarr.

5. Per Lr:'tt-a, iearned counsei for responcl:nt \o 2 submitted that tran s-.fr rr criminal petition filed by the F,r,titir,ner seeking trarrsfer (1.1. 1\ No.20 of 2023 from the court of !l Adifitronal District and Session r; , Itrdge at Sathupaily, Khammam, to 1ry competent Court sr1_Lrz.t,l,:i either at Khammam or l{vdera rad is not maintainrrblt _,nder law. The petitioner filed (,rr1.... p.|lo.6 of 2024 before tLr: ):.rncipal District and Sessions .juCge, Khammam, seeking tr...rrr sft:r of Crl.A.No.2 O of 2023 fronr tit,: lourt of Vi Additional l) strict and Sessions Judge at Sathup,nl\,, Khammam, to any of : LLe I ourt of Sessions situated at Kharr mant, tasing upon her convenierLr:e arr rI the sa-me was rightly dismiss;erl tr5r the Court below by its r:rler. dated OB. 11.2024. He further subrrilted that the petitioner's plesertce is not required in the criminal app,:al. Even if the petitio rer i.rtcrested in participating the proc,r:edirLgs personally, ' 12ooo; to sr:t: sss 5 she can attend the proceedings through video conferencing' The appeal filed by the petitioner is pending since 2023 and Sathupally Court is competent Court to adjud'icate the said appeal as per the territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled seeking transfer the criminal appeal basing on her convenience'

5.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Nazar Madani v' State of Tamil Nadu2.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a crime r'r'as registered against respondent No'2 for the offence under Sectron 4O6 read with 420 of the IPC' The Investigating Ofhcer after conducting investigation frled charge sheet and the same was numbered as C'C'No '682 of 2016 on the hle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, Khammam District and the learned Magistrate passed the judgment and acqrritted respondent No'2 for the offence under Section 4O6 read with 42O of the IPC Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitione r I de facto complainant/victim '/ 2006 (6) scc 204 6 applicat ion filed Crl.A I,io.2O of 2023 and the same w;rs trrenciing before the VI AdCiti,rrrai District and Sessions ji; dg1. zt Sathupally, KhamrrLam It is not in dispute that a,s pe r the territorial .;urisdictior.r. the Judicial First Class Magistrate, M arlhira, comes within tht jurisdiction of Sathupaily. lhr. p,:titioner frled transfer of Crl.A.No.20 ol. :]0llS before the and Sessions Juclge .lr Khammam, uid_e r1 of 2024 invoking the provisions .f Se:ti r. 4og ,f the Cr.P.C. [rrtrn lhe Court of the VI Additionat l_)ist -i:t and Sessions Judge irt S a thupally to any Court of St,ssio.ts situated at Khamme.n i:.r rrl the same was dismissed on 2g.t)9.)-O2.1. Cri.T. P. i,to PrincipaJ l) istrict seeking 7 ' Thr: rrr run ground raised by the learn..cl cou nsel for the petitione:- is t tar as per the provision of SectiorL 4(.)i. olCr.p.C., the petitionel is entrtied to seek transfer Crl.A.No.:O c,f 2(t23from one Court to ilnotlLer Court basing uporr conveniencr: oi t he parties. 8. In Neelam Kanwar supra, the petitiln€r therein frled application frrr seeking transfer of criminal complajrrl N r.6g of 1994 pending cr ihr l-rle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, UT Chandigar h. lr, Mumbai. The Hon,ble Supremr: Cotrt disposed of the said a,plir: rtion on the ground that the petitioner. ir a ladv and 7 respondent No.l is a male and therefore convenience wise a transfer to the place where the lady is residing would be preferred' 9 In the case on hand, the petitioner filed Crl'A'No'2O of 2023 against the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate ln C.C.No'682of2o|6,whereinrespondentNo.2wasacquittedforthe offence under Sectio n 406 read with 42O of the IPC' In the appellate Court, the presence of the appellant is normally not reqr-rired for every adjournment ald the appellant is entitled to prosecute the case through her/his counsel and if the petitioner wants to participate rn the proceedings' she can participate through video conference. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case' lo.InAbdulNazarMadalisupra,theHon,bleSupremeCourt held that the convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension' Convenience for the purposes of transter means the convenience of the prosecution' other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society' 8 to mention that in Rekh.ata Bhaskar v. and others (Tr.Crl.p.N,o. 9 of 2020), this petitioner's request to tr.ar slbr from the I 1. I r, i,, ."l.r*t Naragoni iiivaprasad Court he C that the appella.r-e r: c,urt, by relying upon the Hon,bl -- :rr Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Ran.i S upreme Court Jethmalani (AIR Judgm€nr. 1979 sl4ri3l OIL cases under conveni<:rtcr, ."Lrr riiJti i tii q dispensrttror.t Section qo(t gro unds a..r; substantial, thal 1 ; I1 (.'a [on the lair on t t-ivii tl r omplaints emphasized that the transfer of crrn rl of the Cr.p.C. must be base,l and imperiling grounds of justice, rather tharr <:f the parties. The petitioner fa jlerl o present such aJlegations regarding adjournm ,-,n t s a rcl lavoritism were no I s't lstantiated. The appellate court.s zr.lhe rence to the Standarc Jlr':rating Procedures for virtuar anlt pl:.r.sical hearings further dimir-rished the neecl for transfer, reinforr:ir g the principle that onl-y seri,)*s concerns affecting the fairness of th,: trial justify the exerc;se: ,ri t.ransfer powers. The Hon,ble Apr:x r]ou:.t in Menaka Sanjay GzLnd fr supra held that the transfer of a r:rrmira I case under Section 406 rtf rhe Cr.p.C. should not be based rn rlre ron\.zenience of the parlit:s 72 it is airr:rrrfi' stated supra that the petitror:er her e in sceking transfer of {}r.1.1., No.2O of 2O23 basing upon her conver)i(.nce, \ rhich 9 does not constitute a substantial or compelling reason to justiff the transfer of the appeal. Furthermore, as per the principle laid down by this Court in Rekhala Bhaskar supra, 7f the petitioner or his/her counsel wants to prosecute the proceedings virtually, they can brought to the notice of the appellate Court and the petitioner can attend the proceedings virtually.

13. The reasons mentioned by the petitioner do not constitute a ground to transfer Crl.A.No.2O of 2023 by this Court' Therefore' there are no merits in the present transfer criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the transfer criminal petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sha1l stand closed. /,TRUE COPY/' SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ On" Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J' S.reentva ""'' -" --'iror iis Lordship kind Perusal) \ o To,

1. The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally' Khammam 2. TwoCCs to the puOric prJsJcui* St't" oflelangana' High Court Buildings at HYderabad[OUT] i iljtf,?i'3t "r.,"v, Unron or lndia Ministry or Law' Justice and companv ?[3'S;]Ei,?lHvocates Association Librarv' Hish court for the state of i;;il;, ,iish court Buildinss at Hvderabad -. o""J'ic io'stl 6 Narender Rail Advocate{oPUCl il C; io srl r. AditYa, Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies 5 6 7. B, Pw lp/gh HIGH COURT DATED:26tAH2025 L.tt. copy' to be nurr[ c ORDER TRCRLP.Na.4 of 2025 / 16i SIql ( t :) .) ,1). \. 'rl. 2d25 \ t\=-.-- -.-;/ (( 't "/ / DISMISSING l'HE Tr.CRL.P. Gt-\t,/ U