Telangana High Court
Chava Aruna vs State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4 OF 2025
% Dated 26.03.2025
# Chava Aruna W/o late Chava Venkat Rao
Aged 58 years OCC Housewife
Native of Veerullapdu Village V and M
NTR District A P
Presently residing at Flat No.402,
Talluris Maruti Srinivasam, Plot 268
Near Sri Chaitanya Sardar Patel Nagar,
Kukatpally Hyderabad 500085.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
Represented by Public prosecutor
High Court Buildings Hyderabad and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.G. Narender Raj
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. T. Aditya for R.2
Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon for
R.1
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2000) 10 SCC 589
2. 2006 (6) SCC 204
2
THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4 of 2025
ORDER:
This transfer criminal petition is filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by the petitioner/victim seeking withdraw Crl.A.No.20 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 briefly stated are that the petitioner moved to Hyderabad in 2009 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 Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was 3 numbered as C.C.No.682 of 2016 for the offence under Section 406 read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira, Khammam District and the learned Judge acquitted respondent No.2 for the above said offence.
2.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 and the same is pending before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.T.P.No.6 of 2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, seeking transfer of Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 from the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam, to any of the Court of Sessions situated at Khammam and the same was dismissed on 28.11.2024. 2.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present transfer criminal petition, wherein it is averred that she engaged counsel at Hyderabad, who is aged 70 years and he is suffering from lower back pain problems and old aged ailments and he informed to her that it is not possible to him to travel to Sathupally and contest the appeal in view of his health conditions and the petitioner further averred that she is also interested to participate in the appeal proceedings on her own interest and she is presently 4 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, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a victim and housewife and she is residing in Hyderabad since 2009 and she is suffering with age old ailments and it is very difficult to travel from Hyderabad to Sathupally to prosecute the proceedings in Crl.A.No.20 of 2023. As per Section 407(c) of the Code of Criminal 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 transfer on the other ground that she engaged counsel at Hyderabad, who is suffering from lower back pain problems and old aged ailments and it is not possible to him to 5 travel to Sathupally in view of his health conditions, however, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the said ground.
4.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar 1.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that transfer criminal petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 from the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam, to any competent Court situated either at Khammam or Hyderabad is not maintainable under law. The petitioner filed Crl.T.P.No.6 of 2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, seeking transfer of Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 from the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam, to any of the Court of Sessions situated at Khammam, basing upon her convenience and the same was rightly dismissed by the Court below by its order dated 08.11.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner's presence is not required in the criminal appeal. Even if the petitioner interested in participating the proceedings personally, 1 (2000) 10 SCC 589 6 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 adjudicate 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 Nadu 2.
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 was registered against respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 406 read with 420 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.682 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, Khammam District and the learned Magistrate passed the judgment and acquitted respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 406 read with 420 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner/de facto complainant/victim 2 2006 (6) SCC 204 7 filed Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 and the same was pending before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam. It is not in dispute that as per the territorial jurisdiction, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira, comes within the jurisdiction of Sathupally. The petitioner filed application seeking transfer of Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Khammam, vide Crl.T.P.No.6 of 2024 invoking the provisions of Section 408 of the Cr.P.C. from the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally to any Court of Sessions situated at Khammam and the same was dismissed on 28.09.2024.
7. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the provision of Section 407 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 from one Court to another Court basing upon convenience of the parties.
8. In Neelam Kanwar supra, the petitioner therein filed application for seeking transfer of criminal complaint No.68 of 1994 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, UT Chandigarh, to Mumbai. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said application on the ground that the petitioner is a lady and 8 respondent No.1 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.20 of 2023 against the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.682 of 2016, wherein respondent No.2 was acquitted for the offence under Section 406 read with 420 of the IPC. In the appellate Court, the presence of the appellant is normally not required for every adjournment and the appellant is entitled to prosecute the case through her/his counsel and if the petitioner wants to participate in 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.
10. In Abdul Nazar Madani supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. 9
11. It is relevant to mention that in Rekhala Bhaskar v. Naragoni Sivaprasad and others (Tr.Crl.P.No.19 of 2020), this Court held that the petitioner's request to transfer from the appellate court, by relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SC 468) emphasized that the transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. must be based on substantial, compelling, and imperiling grounds that threaten the fair dispensation of justice, rather than on trivial complaints or convenience of the parties. The petitioner failed to present such grounds, as allegations regarding adjournments and favoritism were not substantiated. The appellate court's adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures for virtual and physical hearings further diminished the need for transfer, reinforcing the principle that only serious concerns affecting the fairness of the trial justify the exercise of transfer powers. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Menaka Sanjay Gandhi supra held that the transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should not be based on the convenience of the parties.
12. It is already stated supra that the petitioner herein seeking transfer of Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 basing upon her convenience, which 10 does not constitute a substantial or compelling reason to justify the transfer of the appeal. Furthermore, as per the principle laid down by this Court in Rekhala Bhaskar supra, if 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.20 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, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 26.03.2025 Note:
L.R. copy to be marked.
(b/o) mar