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 2 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 3 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 4 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. 5
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 6 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.1
(2012) 4 SCC 217 7 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.
12) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that it is not at all a fit case to grant the prayer of the petitioners.
13) In the result, this Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed.
8
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.10.11.2022.
PGR 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Tr.Crl.P.NO.75 OF 2022 Date: 10.11.2022 PGR