ORDER : I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. N. Siva Reddy, as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. G. Rama Gopal. 2. 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.244 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Palakonda, to any other Courts of equivalent jurisdiction in or around Visakhapatnam. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they arrayed as an accused in C.C.No.244 of 2021 on a report lodged by respondent No.2, who is wife of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners submit that respondent No.2, on her behalf and also on behalf of minor child filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in F.C.O.P. No.2331 of 2021 before Family Court -cum- V Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam and thereafter, she lodged a report before SHO, Seethampet Police Station on the ground that her father is working at Seethampet, the 1st petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No.2331 of 2021 against respondent No.2 under Section 9 of Hindu marriage act for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The main contention of the petitioners is that though respondent No.2 is residing at Visakhapatnam, she has shown her residential address at Visakhapatnam in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., chosen to file complaint before SHO, Sithampet Police Station at the instance of her father, who is having influence and when he attended the Court at Palakonda, father of respondent No.2 and some officials have threatened him. They pray to allow the petition. 4. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying allegations made in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in F.C.O.P. No.2331 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam, which is pending by showing her residential address as Visakhapatnam, as she is residing in her parents’ house to attend her job (work from home) and she lodged a report before SHO, Seethampet Police Station as her father is working there where she also resided which place is within the jurisdiction of SHO, Sithampet Police Station, which is permissible under law. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that the petitioners having obtained interim orders for dispensing with attendance of A-2 & A-3, came up with this petition with false allegations, which is not maintainable. She prays to dismiss the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 having chosen to file petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before Family Court wherein she has shown her residential address at Visakhapatnam, who also received notice in the present transfer criminal petition at Visakhapatnam, chosen to file false complaint before SHO, Seethampet Police Station, where her father is working, who has influenced the police and got registered a false case against the petitioners. He would further submit that even after filing of the present transfer petition by the petitioners, respondent No.2 chosen to file domestic violence case against the petitioners at Visakhapatnam, where now she is residing in her parents’ house. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is having threat to his life as when he attended the Court at Palakonda, some officials and police have threatened him. He prays to allow the petition. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no bar for respondent No.2 filing report before SHO Sithampet Police Station, where her father is working which is permissible under Section 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He would further submit that it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is residing in her parents’ house, who also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, 1st petitioner filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights with false averments. He would further submit that maintainability of calendar case cannot be decided in the present petition but Court may consider the convenience and inconvenience of both sides, while considering the request of the petitioners seeking transfer. He prays to dismiss the petition. 7. 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. He prays to dismiss the petition. 7. 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). (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. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307 , held at para 29, which reads as under:- "29. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307 , held 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. 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.” 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 but Court has to see the convenience and inconvenience of the parties and if the request for transfer is considered, whether it will cause any in convenience to the witnesses in the criminal case. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that at first instance, respondent No. 2 filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance from the 1st petitioner, which is pending before Family Court -cum- V Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein she has shown that she is residing in her parents’ house at Vishakhapatnam. It is also not in dispute that, thereafter 1st petitioner filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court, Visakhapatnam, by showing the residential address of respondent No.2 at Visakhapatnam. In the present transfer petition also notice has been ordered to respondent No.2, which served her to the Visakhapatnam address only. Respondent No.2 lodged a report before SHO, Seethampet Police Station on the ground that her father is working thereby invoking Section 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Whether any part of offence said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of SHO, Seethampet Police Station, or not cannot be decided in the present petition but this Court can only see convenience and inconvenience of the parties while considering the request of the petitioners seeking transfer of Calendar Case. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that subsequent to filing of this transfer petition, respondent No.2 also filed petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, claiming reliefs before the Courts at Visakhapatnam. After considering the fact that now respondent No.2 is residing at Visakhapatnam and for the reasons stated in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner, this Court is of an opinion that there are grounds to transfer C.C.No.244 of 2021 from Family Court -cum- V Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam 11. In the result, this Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C No.244 of 2021 from Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Palakonda, Srikakulam District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, where the DVC filed by respondent No.2 is pending. 12. In the result, this Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C No.244 of 2021 from Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Palakonda, Srikakulam District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, where the DVC filed by respondent No.2 is pending. 12. The learned Judge, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakonda shall send the case records in C.C. No.244 of 2021, after duly indexed to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, as expeditiously as possible, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in the present petition, to conduct enquiry and trial in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, simultaneously in DVC and Calendar Case. 13. Both parties shall appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, on 14.07.2023 at 10.30a.m. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, stand closed. The interim stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.