ORDER : 1. This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking transfer of C.C.No.302 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, East Godavari District to any other competent Court in another District. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Ravulapalem Police Station against the petitioners herein which is registered as FIR No.03 of 2013 dated 05.01.2013 alleging that Managing Director of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Pvt. Ltd., and others committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They submit that as per allegation in the complaint, respondent No.2 is the Managing Director of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Pvt. Ltd., which is incorporated on 19.04.1988, engaged in the business of infrastructure development who appointed M/s. JBRK & Co., a Chartered Accountants firm as its auditors on 30.08.2008 for the financial year 2007- 2008 and Sri M.V.S. Ramu, i.e. the 1st petitioner herein and Mr. J. Praveen, are Chartered Accountants and partners of the firm. Respondent No.2 alleged that upon the advice of 1st petitioner, they issued Rs.1,50,000/- equity shares to 2nd petitioner and Rs.1,39,402 to Mr. Ratna Prasad Hanumantha Varjula, who later joined in the company as an Additional Director along with one Mr. Vidyasri Bhaskar Adabala on 05.04.2011. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 proceeded with the investigation on a report lodged by respondent No.2 and then LW-11, Inspector of Police conducted an investigation, who examined four (04) witnesses, recorded their statements and seized relevant documents and thereafter respondent No.1 completed the investigation and filed chargesheet which was taken on file as C.C. No.302 of 2015 pending on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, East Godavari District. It is also the contention of the petitioners that when petitioner Nos.3 and 4 approached this Court to quash the chargesheet against them by filing Criminal Petition No.8884 of 2015, wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 23.09.2015, by granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice by directing the learned Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders. The petitioners submit that then petitioners Nos.1 and 2 herein filed Crl.P. No.12835 of 2015 before this Court for quashment of the chargesheet which was dismissed vide its orders dated 03.05.2023. The main contention of the petitioners is that during the trial in C.C. No.302 of 2015, respondent No.2/complainant herein threatened them with dire consequences, due to that they are seeking transfer of C.C. No.302 of 2015 from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothapeta, East Godavari District to any other competent Court in another District. The petitioners also alleged that previously, respondent No.2 indulged in offences which is subject matter of Crime No.70 of 2012 of Anaparthi Police Station and alleged that the said incident made them to file present petition seeking for transfer, as they are apprehending danger to their life, if they attend the Court at Kothapeta of East Godavari District. 4. I have heard learned counsel, Mr Satya representing on behalf of Mr N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr K Satyananda, representing on behalf of Mr. T.V. Jaggireddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel representing the petitioners would submit that a false case has been registered against the petitioners and then petitioners have filed petition to quash the proceedings and previously this Court by granting interim stay dispensed with their attendance, due to that the petitioners have not attended the Court at Kothapeta and thereafter petition filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings was dismissed, now the petitioners are apprehending danger to their life if they attend the Court at Kothapeta. He would further submit that as petition filed by the petitioners to quash the chargesheet was dismissed on 03.05.2023 only, there was no occasion for petitioners to file petition seeking for transfer as previously their presence before the Court at Kothapeta was dispensed with by this Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to previous conduct of respondent No.2, for which a criminal case was also registered, the petitioners are apprehending danger to their lives in the hands of respondent No.2, who is more influential person. He prays to allow the petition. 6. The learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that petitioners have not filed any document to support their contention with regard to the alleged threat by respondent No.2. He prays to allow the petition. 6. The learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that petitioners have not filed any document to support their contention with regard to the alleged threat by respondent No.2. He would further submit that the alleged incident is of the year 2012 but petitioners have not taken any steps by filing similar petition and came up with this petition only after dismissing their petition to quash the chargesheet. He prays to dismiss the petition. 7. In view of rival submissions, now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether there are any grounds to transfer. C.C. No.302 of 2015 from Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Kothapeta, East Godavari District to any other competent Court in another District?”. 8. POINT:- Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 407 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- “407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals: (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court- (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order- (i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; (ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; (iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or (iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. (2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative: Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. (3) Every application for an order under sub-section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. (4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub- section (7). (5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on of the merits of the application unless at least twenty- four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application. (6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application, the proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose: Provided that such stay shall not affect the subordinate Court' s power of remand under section 309. (7) Where an application for an order under sub- section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. (8) When the High Court orders under sub- section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred. (8) When the High Court orders under sub- section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 9. It is settled law that mere apprehension that justice may not be done at a particular Forum and mere inconvenience of the petitioners may not be a ground for transfer of a case, there must be reasonable apprehension not mere apprehension that trial would be seriously undermine and justice would not be done, if their request to transfer the case is not considered. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha Vs. State of West Bengal & others, 2023 Live Law(SC) 268, judgment dated 17.03.2023, while considering the transfer of criminal cases, has held that the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspersions on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency, wherein it is also discussed the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307 , at para 29 which reads as under:- "29. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 CrPC should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of subsections (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. 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 nonofficial 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 some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.” 10. In the present case, petitioner Nos.3 and 4, at the first instance filed petition in Crl.P. No.8884 of 2015 wherein, this Court permitted them to approach the trial Court by filing petition under Rule 37 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter petitioners filed petition in Crl.P. No.12835 of 2015 and this Court said to be passed orders in Crl.P. No.8884 of 2015 and Crl.P. No.12835 of 2015 dated 03.05.2023 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking for quash of the FIR. A perusal of the contents of the petition, not discloses when respondent No.2 threatened the petitioners and when they attended the Court at Kothapeta. It is not known, when this Court said to be dispensed with appearance of the petitioners before the Court at Kothapeta, and when the trial of the case said to be not commenced, certainly there was no occasion for respondent No.2 being the first witness in the criminal case, attending the Court at Kothapeta, who is said to be a resident of Ravulapalem village. This Court did not find any grounds to consider the prayer of the petitioners seeking transfer of C.C. No.302 of 2015 from Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Kothapeta, East Godavari District to any other competent Court in another District, as mere apprehension is not a ground to consider the request of the petitioners. 11. In the result, this Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, stand closed. The interim stay if any, granted shall stands vacated.