HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Tr. Crl. Petition No.123 of 2014
Date: 05.08.2014 Between:
Bhaskarla Naga Chandra Sekhara Madhav, S/o. Venkateswarlu .. Petitioner/ Accused AND Smt. Bhaskarla Surekha, W/o. Bhaskarla Naga Chandra Sekhara Madhav, and another.
.. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Tr. Crl. Petition No.123 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks for transfer of C.C.No.782 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District to any Court at Secunderabad or Hyderabad or at any other place except Eluru.
2. The only allegation on which the petition is laid is that the brother of the first respondent has been threatening the petitioner with dire consequences.
3. Be it noted that the petitioner and the first respondent are a man and his wife. They are locked up in a case under Section 498-A IPC, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner went to Eluru to attend the Court, he was threatened by the brother of the petitioner. He submitted that he represented about the threat to the Court as well as to police and that police have not taken any action against the brother of the petitioner. The copy of the complaint shows that a complaint was lodged with III Town Police Station by the petitioner, which is accompanied by the receipt issued by police.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the contents of the complaint are false and have been engineered to create a ground for the petitioner to seek for the transfer of the case.
He submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition earlier in Tr. Crl. Petition No.57 of 2014 before this Court and that he withdrew the same on 24.03.2014.
He further submitted that this petition was subsequently laid and was preceeded by a complaint to police in order to create a cause of action for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that such a complaint may not be entertained by the Court as it has been engineered with the sole purpose of creating a ground for transfer.
6. This is a case where the allegation of the petitioner is not vague but is substantiated by a complaint. The ordinary rule is that cases may be transferred to the convenience of the wife in the event there is a dispute as to whether the case should be transferred for the convenience of the wife vis-à-vis of the husband.
7. In this case, if the case is transferred from Eluru where the first respondent is residing, admittedly it would cause inconvenience to the first respondent. However, in the light of the complaint of the petitioner with III Town Police Station, I am not inclined to keep the case pending before the Court at Eluru. At the same time, keeping the state of the first respondent as well as the economic condition of the first respondent, I deem it appropriate to transfer the case within West Godavari District itself.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is more convenient for both parties if the case is transferred to Vijayawada and in the event the first respondent is accepted for transfer of the case to Vijayawada, the petitioner is ready to bear the travelling expenses of the first respondent for adjournments of the case. Later, with the consent of the first respondent, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that he accepted for transfer of the case to Vijayawada, subject to the offer of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.782 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is withdrawn and is made over to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada to be assigned to one of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court having jurisdiction for disposal according to law. The case is transferred to Vijayawada with the specific condition that the petitioner shall bear the travelling expenses of the first respondent for the adjournments of the case.
10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Tr. Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 05.08.2014 Isn