Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Malempati Venkateswarlu @ Kannaiah And ... vs Mittapalli Sudhakar Reddy Vide on 22 September, 2025
APHC010442792025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 83/2025
Between:
Malempati Venkateswarlu @ Kannaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Gorantla Venkateswarlu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T SREEDHAR
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.83 of 2025
ORDER:
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking to withdraw S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki and transfer the same to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole to try along with S.C.No.55 of 2018.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:
I. Basing on the complaint lodged by the respondents herein, the petitioners are arrayed as accused in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 and IPC, under Section 212 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, the petitioner No.3 herein lodged a complaint against the respondents herein under Sections 120(B), 143, 144, 148 & 307 r/w 149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the respondents herein was arrayed as accused in S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners have filed Tr.Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole seeking to withdraw S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki and transfer the same to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole to try along with S.C.No.55 of 2018, wherein the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole vide order dated 05.03.2025 had dismissed the Tr.Crl.M.P., filed by the petitioners.
III. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the case in S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki and the case in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole are the case and counter and in order to avoid the conflict of Judgments, both the cases should be tried by the same Judge. He further submits that the petitioners are residents of Bapatla and Guntur District and it is very difficult for the petitioners to attend the Court proceedings in the aforesaid two cases which are situated at two different places on each and every date of adjournment as such the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki and transfer the same to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.
3. The respondent Nos.2 to 11 and 14 to 19 have filed the counter affidavit stating that if the cases in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole and S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki are tried simultaneously or separately by the same Judge i.e., the Principal District & Sessions Court at Ongole, there is possibility of creating serious law and order problem. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 11 and 14 to 19 has represented that the un-official respondents are apprehending life threat because as per the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.55 of 2018, the accused are the followers of one Mr.Gottipati Ravi Kumar, Political Leader and as such if the case in S.C.No.41 of 2019, pending before the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki is transferred to Ongole to try along with S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, there would be no safety to the witnesses in S.C.No.55 if 2018 and requested this Court to dismiss the transfer criminal petition.
4. Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent No.20 and Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 11 and 14 to 19. Perused the material available on record.
5. As could be seen from the charge sheet filed by the Police in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, the said case is filed against 16 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 and IPC, under Section 212 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and nearly 70 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. On the other hand, the charge sheet filed by the Police in S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, under Sections 120(B), 143, 144, 148 & 307 r/w 149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act shows that a charge sheet has been filed against total number of 19 accused and 42 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. Furthermore, the alleged incident in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, was happened on 19.05.2017, within the limits of Ballikaruva Police Station, whereas, the alleged incident in S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, has happened on 09.11.2017, within the limits of Addanki Police Station, and both the offences are distinct offences, which are not the case and counter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a reliance on the Judgment dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of A.P. vs Mittapalli Sudhakar Reddy vide Crl.A.No.1115 of 2014, wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"....15. The question, which arises for consideration is, what would be the effect of not trying case and counter case/case and cross case simultaneously knowing that there is a counter case or cross case?
16. The High Court of Bombay, way back in the year 1943 in Emperor vs. Banappa Kallappa Ajawan1 enunciated the way, in which, the cases of rival factions were to be tried and the evidence to be looked into while dealing the cases, though not simultaneously, but separately. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion, which is as under:
"(i) There is of course no objection in law to both the cases being tried by separate Judges with the help of separate juries or assessors, but such a procedure is always open to the risk of the two Courts coming to conflicting findings and occasionally, as in the present case, it may result in very serious injustice, one side or the other being wrongly convicted.
(ii) In our opinion the most desirable procedure in such cases would seem to be that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge, though with different assessors or juries. The first case should be tried to a conclusion and the verdict of the jury or the opinion of the assessors, taken. But the Judge should postpone judgment in that case till he has heard the second case to a conclusion, and he should then pronounce judgments separately in each case. He would of course be bound to confine his judgment in each case to the evidence AIR 1944 Bombay 146 DB CPK, J & Dr. KMR, J led in that particular case and would not be at liberty to use the evidence in one case for the purpose of the judgment in the other case and to allow his findings in one case to be influenced in any manner to the prejudice of the accused by the views which he may have formed in the other case. It may be that in some particular cases he might feel some difficulty about trying both cases, and in such a case it would always be open to him to get the second case transferred".
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed another reliance on the Judgment dated 08.10.2021, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Crl.A.Nos.1051-1054 of 2021" between Nasib Singh vs The State of Punjab & Anr.
The facts in the above said case are nine appeals were filed before the High Court. Five appeals were filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 29 November 2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in the trial arising out of FIR 96 of 2012 under Sections 328, 363A, 366, 376 and 34 of the IPC. Similarly, appeals were also filed against the conviction of the accused and sentence imposed on 29 January 2015 arising out of FIR 187 of 2012 dated 31 December 2012 under Sections 306 read with 34, 217, 218 and 120B of the IPC.
The facts in the aforesaid case further reveals that the acquittal of the appellant of offences arising out of FIR 96 and FIR 187 was also challenged by the prosecutrix's mother in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of all the nine appeals by a common impugned judgment and order dated 20 December 2019 and the High Court remitted the judgments of conviction and acquittal dated 29 November 2014 and 29 January 2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge in the trials arising out of FIR 96 and FIR 187 and directed that trials be clubbed and tried together as provided under Section 223 Cr.P.C., against which a Criminal Appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The facts in the present case are the date, time and place are alleged occurrences are distinct and the jurisdiction of Courts are different and the trial has not been commenced in both the cases.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed a reliance on the Judgment dated 19.07.1988, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Nathi Lal and others Vs State of U.P. and Another1 vide Crl.A.No.272 of 1988", the facts of the said case law are not at all applicable to facts of the present case on hand.
9. On a perusal of the charge sheets filed by the Police in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole and S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, it is evident that admittedly, the place, date, time and nature of the alleged offences are different and the jurisdiction of the trial Courts in the aforesaid cases are situated at different places. Furthermore, in both the cases, the trial had not yet been commenced.
10. The contention of the respondent Nos.2 to 11 and 14 to 19 is that they are apprehending life threat because as per the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.55 of 2018, the accused are the followers of one Mr.Gottipati Ravi Kumar, Political Leader and if the cases in S.C.No.55 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole and S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki are tried simultaneously or separately by the same Judge i.e., the Principal District & Sessions Court at Ongole, there is possibility of creating serious law and order problem due to lack of safety to the witnesses in S.C.No.55 if 2018.
11. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of criminal case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, 1 1990 Supp Supreme Court Cases 145 considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors2 held as follows:
"24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:
(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;
(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;
(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;
(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and
(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice."
12. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that while transferring a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. 2 2011 (1) SCC 307 Admittedly, the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 144, 148 & 307 r/w 149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act in S.C.No.41 of 2019, alleged to have been occurred within the limits of the Addanki Police Station and the jurisdictional Court is the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Addanki, whereas, the alleged offences punishable under Sections120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 and IPC, under Section 212 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act in S.C.No.55 of 2018 said to have been occurred within the limits of Ballikaruva Police Station and the jurisdictional Court is the learned District & Sessions Judge Court, Ongole. As stated supra, the place, date, time and nature of the alleged offences are distinct and different from each other and the jurisdiction of the trial Courts in the aforesaid cases are situated at different places. "If the plea of the petitioners is accepted and the case in S.C.No.41 of 2019, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki is transferred to the District & Sessions Judge Court, the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) earmarking the Courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless". The law is well settled that "the jurisdiction of a Court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Cr.P.C". Therefore, In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and as such the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
13. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed.
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: 22.09.2025 SRT 42 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.83 of 2025 Dt. 22.09.2025 SRT