Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Basetty Pradeep Kumar, vs Basetty Gnanadeepthi, on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7 OF 2020
ORDER:-
This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking
withdrawal of D.V.C.No.5 of 2018 from the file of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam District and
transfer to the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Badvel, Kadapa District.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the marriage of petitioner
No.1 was performed with respondent No.1 on 25.03.2016.
Thereafter petitioner No.1/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2017
on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet due to
differences which developed between them and also on the ground
of unsoundness of mind of respondent No.1/wife. The same was
decreed. Respondent No.1 herein has also filed a complaint under
Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the
petitioners besides filing partition suit. Overall the following five
cases are pending out of which four cases are filed before the
Courts at Badvel and only one case is pending before the Court in
Giddalur.
S.No. Case Number Name of the Court
1. C.C.No.552 of 2017 AJCJ, Badvel, Kadapa District
2. O.S.No.228 of 2017 JCJ, Badvel, Kadapa District
3. D.V.C. No.5 of 2018 JCJ, Giddalur, Prakasam District
4. C.C.No.167 of 2019 AJCJ, Badvel, Kadapa District
5. C.C.No.255 of 2019 AJCJ, Badvel, Kadapa District
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are seeking transfer of D.V.C.No.5 of 2018 which is
pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur as four other
cases are pending before the Courts at Badvel and respondent
No.1 is attending the said cases at Badvel. Further respondent
No.1 has not moved any application seeking transfer of the cases
which are pending at Badvel. Therefore, no prejudice would be
caused to respondent No.1 if the subject case is transferred.
Learned counsel also submits that petitioner No.1 is paying
maintenance to respondent No.1.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying all the allegations
made in the petition while alleging that at the time of performing
her marriage with petitioner No.1, her parents presented cash of
Rs.15,00,000/-, gold ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/- towards
dowry on the demand of her in-laws and also spent huge amount
for performing the marriage. After marriage the petitioners started
harassing respondent No.1 by demanding additional dowry and
alleging that she is not well educated and will not do job in future.
They also blamed her that she is mentally disordered woman.
Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed maintenance case and though
the Court below has granted Rs.18,000/- towards maintenance to
her and her daughter petitioner No.1 has not paid a single pie.
Petitioner No.1 filed divorce O.P. in which respondent No.1 filed
counter but petitioner No.1 has obtained exparte decree by
colluding with her counsel. As respondent No.1 was trying to
reopen divorce O.P. petitioner Nos.1 and 2 attacked respondent
No.1 on 29.03.2019 at Badvel RTC bus stand, as such she filed a
complaint which was numbered as C.C.No.167 of 2019 against
which petitioners have file counter case i.e. C.C.No.255 of 2019.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that petitioner
No.1 who is bank employee cannot be given special privilege to
seek transfer of a criminal case and the case cannot be transferred
merely on the ground of inconvenience of the parties. It is further
alleged that respondent No.1 has a three years old girl and she has
no source of income. Therefore, she is depending on the mercy of
her parents and she has no male assistance as her father is
serving in Indian Army and her brother is studying.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the
complainant has right to choose any Court having jurisdiction.
Merely because the accused are residents of a particular place
they cannot apply for transfer of a case to a Court situated at their
place". No transfer petition can be entertained on the basis of
vague and bald allegations. A very strong case of real
apprehension is necessary. The case cannot be sought to be
transferred on apprehensions which have no basis whatsoever or
on the basis of misconceived rather than ill-conceived
apprehensions.
7. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on a
judgment reported in Dr.Shaila v. State of UP1 wherein it was
held that criminal case cannot be transferred only on the ground
that the applicants live far off from the court concerned and they
have to appear in person on each date before the Court concerned.
8. In Sukhdas Vs. State of Rajathan2 it was held that transfer
of a case from one Court to another indirectly casts doubt on the
competence and integrity of the Judge from whom the case is
2011 Cr LJ 2829 (2830) (All)
2004 (3) WLC 668
sought to be transferred. Mere presumptions or possible
apprehensions are not sufficient. Therefore, only good and
sufficient grounds, clearly set out in the order, may justify the
transfer.
9. In Vijay Pal vs. State of Haryana3 held that in the absence
of any justified reason, it is not proper and legal to exercise the
power under section 407 Cr.P.C. and transfer the Sessions Case.
10. In Pijush Banerjee vs. Paromita Banerjee4 it was held that
maintenance proceedings filed by the wife, on the husband's
application alleging that the opposite party threatened him with
dire consequences without any convincing evidence were not
transferred.
11. In Mahua Bhowmick vs Bobby Bhowmick5 it was held that
since the threat to one's personal safety and security, if at all, is a
law and order problem of the particular locality and is not covered
by the grounds which have been specifically enumerated under the
provisions of Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of
transferring a case from one place to another, and hence, viewed
that the prayer for transfer of the case on such ground is not
tenable in view of the clear provisions of Section 407 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the above submissions learned counsel for
respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition.
12. Heard Sri K.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2.
1999 (9) SCC 67
4 (2002) CrLJ 4771 (4773) (Cal)
5 2003 Cr LJ 2638 (2639) (Cal)
13. There is no dispute about the fact that while considering
transfer application in matrimonial cases the Court has to take
into consideration the convenience of the wife. But at the same
time the Court has also to see the convenience of both the parties
and balance the same. In the present petition admittedly four
cases are pending before Courts at Badvel and out of four cases
three are criminal cases and respondent No.1 is attending the said
cases.
14. Therefore, in view of the same and taking into consideration
particularly the fact that as far as criminal cases are concerned it
is difficult to transfer those matters from one place to another as
the witnesses, investigating officer and other relevant material will
be available at the place of offence, this Court is inclined to grant
the relief as prayed for.
15. Accordingly this Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed.
D.V.C.No.5 of 2018 is withdrawn from the file of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam District and
transferred to the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Badvel, Kadapa District.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
Date :03.02.2021
IKN
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
(Allowed)
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7 OF 2020
03.02.2021
IKN
