(Prayer: pleased to transfer CC No.150 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allagadda, Kurnool district to any the equivalent courts in Kurnool Town of Kurnool District in the interest of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to CC No. 150 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allagada, Kurnool district and pass)

1. The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for ‘short the B.N.S.S.’) seeking transfer of C.C.No.150 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District, to any of the equivalent Courts in Kurnool Town, for trial and disposal of the same.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

                  I. The Petitioner has been facing the present Criminal Case since 07.08.2016. The trial commenced on 01.11.2019; however, on several occasions, the proceedings could not progress due to various reasons. After a lapse of 2,056 days from the commencement of the trial, only two witnesses have been examined. Despite repeated efforts to secure the attendance of witnesses, those who appeared turned hostile.

                  II. The petitioner further submits that he has missed the APP notification bearing Rc.No.15/SLPRB/Rct.1/2025, dated 04.08.2025. The disqualification clause of the said notification provides that “a person who has been convicted for any offence or is facing trial in any court of law, except for offences of a technical nature such as violations under the Motor Vehicles Act or the J.J. Act, shall stand disqualified.” In view of the foregoing reasons, the petitioner contends that he is rendered ineligible to apply for the said notification. The petitioner submits that due to the inordinate delay in conducting the trial, he is losing opportunities to appear for public examinations, which, he submits, amounts to a violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

                  III. The petitioner further submits that he is being deprived of all opportunities, whether  in the public or private sector. He further pleaded that he was previously called for an interview in Mumbai for the post of Legal Manager at IDBI Bank; however, due to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, he was refused employment in the said institution.

                  IV. The petitioner further submits that he has been unable to earn his livelihood, as the pendency of the present case has become widely known in the town, adversely affecting his career prospects. The petitioner states that he was not admitted even as a junior in any office due to the existence of the criminal cases and has been surviving solely on limited resources and with limited support.

                  V. The petitioner further submits that the prosecution has been deliberately delaying the proceedings of the case on one pretext or another and has failed to produce the witnesses before the Court in a timely manner.

                  VI. The petitioner further submits that he is a practicing as an Advocate at Allagadda. Being placed in the position of an accused in the present criminal proceedings has adversely affected his professional standing. The petitioner states that the Court staff has treated him with less respect, and members of the public who attend the Court have also observed him in the accused position. This has had a long-term negative impact on his career, as the petitioner’s status as an accused has created an impression that he is unable to render justice to his clients, given that he himself is facing criminal proceedings before the trial Court. The distance between Allagadda & Kurnool is approximately 125 Kms, the only remaining witnesses have to be examined and they are residing in Kurnool and is employed, which has further contributed to the delay in the case proceedings.

                  VII. The petitioner further submits that the prosecution has wantonly not producing the investigating officer, i.e. none other than LW12, in the present case. The petitioner further submitted that in C.C.No.234/2017, on 26.11.2025, the same investigating officer, LW12, appeared before the Court, deposed, and deposed his statements and cross-examined on the very same day. The petitioner further submits that the same Investigating Officer has similarly appeared and deposed in other cases on different occasions, which demonstrates that the failure to produce the investigating officer in the present case is deliberate and contributes to the undue delay in the trial Court. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. The material available on record reveals that a Criminal Case has been instituted vide F.I.R.No.96 of 2016, dated 07.08.2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 506, 506(ii) of I.P.C. before the Allagadda Town Police Station, against the petitioner herein, after completion of investigation, Police laid a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.150 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein is practicing as an Advocate at Allagadda Town and the said case is pending since more than nine (09) years before the said Court. He further contended that the entire evidence has been completed before the trial Court, except recording the evidence of Investigating Officer.

5. Heard Mr. Gunda Gopi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State.

6. The material on record prima facie reveals that the Criminal Case has been instituted before the jurisdictional Court, and the entire evidence in the said case has been completed, except for the recording of the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The apprehension of the Petitioner herein is that, though sufficient time has been given by the Trial Court, despite summons being issued to the Investigating Officer, they were not served, and that the said C.C.No.150 of 2017 has caused further delay.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Judge has to record the evidence of Investigating Officer alone and the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses were recorded and the Investigating Officer is currently working at IV Town Police Station, Kurnool. The case is pending before the Jurisdictional Court since nine (09) years and the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses were recorded by the trial Court, except recording the evidence of Investigating Officer that too at the present stage, after lapse of nine (9) years, in C.C.No.150 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, cannot be transferred to any other Court in Kurnool Judicial District. In case, if the said C.C.No.150 of 2017 has been transferred to some other Court, the case proceedings which was instituted at about nine (9) years ago will be delayed further more.

8. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of the criminal case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the facts that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors(2011 (1) SCC 307) held as follows:

                  “24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:

                  (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

                  (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

                  (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;

                  (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and

                  (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.”

9. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case on hand, i.e., C.C.No.150 of 2017 is pending before the Jurisdictional Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District. In case, if the matter has been transferred from Jurisdictional Court to another Court that too entire evidence of witnesses has been recorded, except recording evidence of Investigating Officer. Therefore, at this stage, if the said C.C.No.150 of 2017 is withdrawn and transferred to any other Court at Kurnool, the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure earmarking the Courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless.

10. For the above said reasons, I am of the considered view that there are no valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner to transfer the said C.C.No.150 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District, to any of the equivalent Courts in Kurnool Town.

11. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State, since the matter pertains to the year 2017 and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District, and the matter has been pending since (09) years, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District, is hereby directed to dispose of the said C.C.No.150 of 2017, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the a copy of this order and send the compliance report to the Registrar (Judicial) without fail.

12. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.