Dismissed¶8

Palla Lanaya Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jan 2026TRCRLP/1/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of criminal case; Section 447 BNSS 2023; withdrawal and transfer of C.C. No.133 of 2023 from Additional Judicial Magistrate, Narsapuram (West Godavari) to Pithapuram (East Godavari); complainant's plea of threat and inconvenience; jurisdiction of the court where offence took place; witnesses' residence; Rajesh Talwar v. C.B.I. (2012) 4 SCC 217 relied on; Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615 referred; transfer petition dismissed at admission stage; interim orders and miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, as complainant, herself invoked the jurisdiction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram, within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence took place. ¶6

Palla Lanaya Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.01 of 2026

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner/complainant herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 8the BNSS, 2023.9), seeking to withdraw C.C.No.133 of 2023, on the file of 1^st Additional Judicial Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and the transfer the same to any other competent Court at Pithapuram, East Godavari District, for trial and disposal.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C. No.133 of 2023. The private complaint has been instituted by the petitioner/complainant vide C.C. No.133 of 2023 before the jurisdictional Court, i.e., the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, and the same is pending since 2023 for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No.133 of 2023, while appearing before the concerned Court, the respondent used to threaten the complainant and that a complaint was also sent to the

¶6

¶7

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari District through post. He would submit that the petitioner also enclosed a copy of the said complaint along with the present Transfer Criminal Petition in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that no first information report has been registered by the concerned police till so far, and that the petitioner herein has also not filed any protest petition before the concerned Magistrate.

¶8

The material on record further reveals that the petitioner herein, who is a complainant under C.C. No.133 of 2023, has herself chosen the jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate at Narsapuram, West Godavari District, where the alleged offence has taken place. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses in the said C.C. No.133 of 2023 are residing within the East Godavari District. As seen from the copy of the complaint enclosed with the grounds of this Transfer Criminal Petition, the 1^st witness is the complainant herein, the 2^nd witness is none other than the father of the petitioner, and the 3^rd witness is the husband of the petitioner. The other two witnesses, i.e., witnesses 4 and 5, are residing in the West Godavari District at where the case is pending. Furthermore, the trial in this case has not been commenced, and the said case has been instituted in the year 2023.

¶9

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India , reported in (2019) 14 SCC 615 .

¶11

In the case at hand, that the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No.133 of 2023, has invited the jurisdiction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence has taken place. In the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. C.B.I. & Ors¹ ., the Hon9ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶12

<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 has to travel across an entire State to attend criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. Likewise, witnesses too may have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring cases from one court to another, on the basis of the 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 is inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned and is nothing to be taken into consideration.=

¶13

The transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably required under the facts and circumstances of case. For transfer of a criminal case, the petitioner has to explain the reasons to consider the request of transfer. Admittedly, the petitioner has not shown any reasons to consider her request. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to consider the request of the petitioner.

¶14

1 2012 (4) SCC 217

¶15

¶16