Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1513 (AP)

Beenathi Ramakrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-12-26

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2022
JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ defacto-complaint in C.C.No.445 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District, with a prayer to transfer the said case to any other Court at Ananthapuramu or Gooty. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that originally he filed Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2021 before the District and Sessions Judged, Ananthapuramu, for transfer of C.C.No.445 of 2016 from Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri to any other Court at Anathapuramu or Gooty, which came to be dismissed. Hence, he filed the present application. 3. The petitioner is the defacto-complainant in C.C.No.445 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri. He was not informed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor or the police or the concerned Court clerk about the case status and the stages of the case, for the reasons best known to them. The counsel for the opposite party is the close associate of local political party and hence all are colluded together. Previously the petitioner is a party to C.C.No.683 of 2014, pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, as a list of witnesses No.2 and there was no progress in the said case since the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the staff of the concerned Court colluded with opposite Advocate. So, he brought the facts by filing Transfer Cr.M.P.No.173 of 2018. After perusing the record, the Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, transferred C.C.No.683 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty. Hence, the petitioner filed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2021 before the Court below, but, the Court without considering dismissed it. So, as the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Police and the Court staff are not cooperating with him and not informing about the stage, it is necessary to grant the relief of transfer withdrawing the C.C.No.445 of 2016 from the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri and to transfer the same to any other Court in Ananthapuramu District or Gooty. Hence, the petition. 4. The second respondent/defacto-complainant did not appear in spite of service of notice. The first respondent is the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor. 5. Hence, the petition. 4. The second respondent/defacto-complainant did not appear in spite of service of notice. The first respondent is the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor. 5. Now, the point for determination is whether C.C.No.445 of 2016, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, is liable to be transferred to any other competent Court as prayed? Point:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defacto-complainant in C.C.No.445 of 2016 wherein neither Assistant Public Prosecutor nor the police nor the Court staff intimated anything to the petitioner about the stage of the case and status of the case which creates apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and the Advocate for the accused is belonged to a political group, as such, the Court may grant the relief of transfer. 7. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would oppose the prayer on the ground that it is not provided under law to intimate each and every adjournment to the defacto-complainant and the prosecution was launched by the State, represented by the concerned Station House Officer and the presence of the defacto-complainant may be necessary at the time of evidence and he will be summoned duly when the matter is posted for trial and the prayer of the petitioner is misconceived. The learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, duly dismissed the application filed by the defacto-complainant in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2021 and he would further submit that the petitioner submitted another instance where he could get the relief before the learned Sessions Judge pertaining to C.C.No.683 of 2014 and it is a case where the allegations are somewhat different. 8. This Court has carefully looked into the contentions advanced. It appears that the petitioner filed application before the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2021 with the self-same averments and the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the same with specific observations that 'it is absurd to say that the information to be provided by the Court staff, police personnel and A.P.P. to the defacto-complainant. Now, the information is available to each and every litigant public through online. The defacto-complainant is supposed to know the status of his case either through his counsel or personally. Now, the information is available to each and every litigant public through online. The defacto-complainant is supposed to know the status of his case either through his counsel or personally. He is not supposed to throw mud upon the staff of the Court, police personnel, A.P.P. The petitioner has not filed any single piece of paper before this Court that there is a life threat to the petitioner. If he is facing a life threat, he has to lodge a police complaint'. This is the substance of the order. 9. As evident from the order in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.173 of 2018, it was passed by the Full Additional Charge Officer and both orders disclosed different reasons. However, the order in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.173 of 2018 is not at all binding on the learned Principal Sessions Judge while disposing Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2021. So, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot boost his contention by simply relying upon the order in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.173 of 2018. 10. Admittedly, it is a case where the presence of the defcto-complainant before the Court below may be required at a different stage i.e., to give evidence on summons. The prosecuting agency is the State, represented by the concerned Station House Officer. This Court cannot find fault with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2021. Simply, because, the petitioner is not able to get proper information from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, police, or Court staff, he cannot raise any allegation against public agencies. It appears that he is not able to wait for receipt of summons where he is bound to give evidence on receiving the summons. Apart from this, the information of the progress and status of each case is now available in e-Courts. The petitioner filed the application before the Court below without any substance and further with the self-same averments filed the application before this Court. Hence, I see no reason to grant relief. 11. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.