Court dismissed a Transfer Criminal Petition filed by a wife-battered spouse under Section 407 CrPC, rejecting claims of witness intimidation due to lack of material evidence and noting hardship to the accused husband in the new venue.
Transfer of case to Chennai Court at Ranga Reddy or Nampally dismissed; interim relief petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.51 of 2013
ORDER:
This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., to transfer C.C.No.416 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, to any Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ranga Reddy or Nampally.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.
Basing on the report lodged by the petitioner in Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, the police registered a case in Crime No.148 of 2010 against the 2nd respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner/defacto-complainant, on 03.04.2010 on the allegation that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC.
It seems that recently the petitioner has come down to Hyderabad and filed the present Transfer Criminal Petition seeking transfer of the case to any Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ranga Reddy or Nampally. The ground on which the transfer is sought is that if the case is tried at Vijayawada, the 2nd respondent-husband may influence and intimidate the witnesses, in which event there is possibility for the witnesses to give evidence against the petitioner, contrary to the statements given by them before the police while they were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
While dealing with the transfer petition, the Court has to see the
convenience of both parties. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent would influence the witnesses, absolutely there is no material placed on record showing that the witnesses will be influenced by the 2nd respondent. Since the police filed charge sheet after conducting investigation, absolutely there is no necessity for the petitioner to go to Vijayawada for each and every adjournment, whereas if the case is transferred to Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent has to attend the Court in Ranga Reddy or Nampally for each and every adjournment, in which event he will be subjected to lot of inconvenience.
For the foregoing reasons, I see no grounds to transfer C.C.No.416 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, to any Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ranga Reddy or Nampally and, accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Tr.Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2013, filed for interim relief, shall stand closed.
________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J
27.02.2013 v v/dv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether two matrimonial parties are entitled to transfer of criminal proceedings from Vijayawada to Hyderabad Courts.
Whether the apprehension of witness influence by the respondent is substantiated by material on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State
2nd Respondent
R.Kantha Rao
J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
