Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sugalibanavathi Lakshmi ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 November, 2022

                                         1



      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

           TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.75 OF 2022

ORDER:-

      This Transfer Criminal Petition came to be filed on behalf

of the petitioners, who are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.511

of 2021, on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu, praying the Court to transfer the said case to

the   Court      of     Additional    Judicial    First   Class   Magistrate,

Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

      2)      The case of the petitioners in brief is that the

deponent is the first petitioner, who is well acquainted with the

facts. The petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.511 of

2021, on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu, under Sections 323 and 448 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short).             The said case was registered

basing on the report filed by the second respondent with

allegations that the present petitioners trespassed into the

house, attacked her, her son and daughter. Basing on the

report, the police registered the F.I.R. in Crime No.12 of 2021

under Sections 323 and 448 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and filed charge

sheet. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu took cognizance in C.C.No.511 of 2021 and

issued summons. The petitioner is resident of Penumaka

Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner Nos.2

and 3 are residents of Duggirala Village and Mandal, Guntur

District. The petitioner has a son by name Sugali Pardhu, aged

4 years. After her husband necked out her and her child, she is

living with widowed mother. She and her son are dependent

upon her mother. Her mother is a coolie. She and her son filed

M.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

When the second respondent quarreled with her on 05.01.2021

and called her sister and her brother-in-law on 06.01.2021 to

take petitioner to Penukmaka and on 07.01.2021 she was

attacked by her in-laws and sister-in-law, who beat her

indiscriminately and tried to kill her. So, the petitioner lodged a

complaint against the second respondent which was registered

as Crime No.11 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 354, 323 r/w 34

of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The distance

between Mangalagiri and Ananthapuramu is 472 Kms. The

petitioner cannot travel to such a distance along with the small

kid. The second respondent is influential people locally. They

got the charge sheet laid by influencing the police. Due to their

influence, police are not investigating the case filed by her

pertaining to Crime No.11 of 2021. Her sister-in-law by name

Sugali Sravana Sandhya is working as Assistant Government

Pleader in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. She is influencing

the local police and not getting the case investigated. The

second petitioner is working as Tahsildar, Tsunder Mandal and

third petitioner is an unemployed. Hence, the petition to

transfer the C.C.No.511 of 2021 from the file of I Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu to the Court of

Additioanl Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mangalagiri, Guntur

District.

3) The second respondent got filed a counter denying

the averments in the petition and resisting the prayer.

4) The contention of the second respondent in

substance is that her son namely Sugali Kishan Kumar Naik and

the first petitioner were residing in her house since March, 2020.

During the said period, she was put to abuse by the first

petitioner. On 07.01.2021 at about 7-45 A.M., the petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 criminally trespassed into her house and picked up

a quarrel and attacked her. She lodged a police report which

was the subject matter in Crime No.12 of 2021 under Sections

323, 448 r/w 34 of IPC. The police laid charge sheet after

investigation in C.C.No.511 of 2021. The case is pending for the

appearance of the petitioners. At that stage, they filed the

present petition. It is not maintainable. The petitioner did not

make out any case under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The petitioners would manage the criminal

proceedings, if the prayer is granted. They filed Criminal

Petition vide Crl.P.No.6231 of 2022 to quash the criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.511 of 2021 and they failed to disclose

the same in the present petition. The first petitioner made a

complaint against the second respondent which was the subject

matter in Crime No.11 of 2021 for the offences under Sections

498A, 354 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and it is pending for investigation. The present

petition is filed to evade the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.511

of 2021, as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

in accordance with the contents of the petition.

6) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, Advocate, representing the

learned Public Prosecutor for first respondent, opposed the

prayer.

7) The learned counsel for the second respondent

would contend in accordance with the contents of the counter.

8) Now in deciding the present petition, the point that

arises for consideration is that whether the C.C.No.511 of 2021

on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ananthapuram is liable to be transferred to the Court of

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri, Guntur

District?

POINT:-

9) There is no dispute that the present petitioners are

figured as accused in C.C.No.511 of 2021. The defacto-

complainant in the said case is no other than the second

respondent. There is also no dispute that basing on the report

of the present petitioners, Crime No.12 of 2021 was registered

which is said to be pending for investigation. Both the offences

in question were alleged to be happened within the territorial

jurisdiction of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu. While Crime No.11 of 2021 was investigated

culminated into filing of charge sheet i.e., C.C.No.511 of 2021,

the investigation pertaining to Crime No.11 of 2021 is said to be

pending. Thus, the simple ground on which the present

petitioners canvassed the present Criminal Transfer Petition is

that the first petitioner has a small child and the distance is 472

Kms. from Mangalagiri to Ananthapuramu, as such, she cannot

travel. Her allegation that her sister-in-law is stage managing

the investigation pertaining to Crime No.11 of 2021, etc., cannot

be looked into by this Court. So, they remained only one

allegation that the petitioner cannot undertake journey to such a

long distance. It is to be noticed that the I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu will have jurisdiction

to deal with C.C.No.511 of 2021 and even the subject matter

pertaining to Crime No.11 of 2021 in case the charge sheet is

laid.

10) The learned counsel for the second respondent

would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajkumar Sabu vs. M/s Sabu Trade Private Limited, dated

07.05.2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision

dealing with a prayer of transfer declined to grant the relief of

transfer and referred the earlier observations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI 1 and the

observations are as follows:

"46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court.

(2012) 4 SCC 217

If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea, therefore, deserves outright rejection."

11) In the light of the above, this Court is of the

considered view that the incident pertaining to C.C.No.511 of

2021 and even according to the petitioners the subject matter

pertaining to Crime No.11 of 2021 were alleged to be happened

within the territorial jurisdiction of I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. For the sake of

convenience of the petitioners, the said case cannot be

transferred. Except pleading convenience, the petitioners failed

to make out any other ground. There is a vague allegation in

the petition that there will a threat to the petitioner, if she

attended at Ananthapuramu Court. The said allegation is

baseless.