ORDER : B. Syamsunder, J. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Yadavalli Ramesh as well as learned counsel for 2nd respondent, Mr. M.P.V.N.V. Sastri. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking transfer of C.C. No.65 of 2024 from Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District, on the ground that now the 1st petitioner is working as Finance Officer, IIIT College, Nuziveedu of Krishna Judicial District, whereas the 2nd petitioner is aged 65 years, residing at Naraspuram, the 3rd petitioner is practicing as Advocate at Kovvuru of West Godavari District, the 4th petitioner is working as School Assistant, Z.P. High School, Ganapavaram, the 5th petitioner is working as School Assistant, Z.P. High School, Mogalturu Village of West Godavari District and the 6th petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP School, Thurputallu Village, Narasapuram Mandal of West Godavari District, due to that, it is difficult for them to attend before the court at Bobbili for each and every adjournment, which is at about 400 Kms. They submit that 2nd respondent/Wife is also working as Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist (Ortho), Government Hospital, Chinthalapudi, West Godavari District and residing in the same village and four witnesses are also residents of West Godavari District, due to that, it may not be difficult for them to attend before the court and it is convenient for both sides to attend before the Court at Eluru. They pray to allow the petition. 3. None appeared for 1st respondent – State and no counter affidavit is filed. The 2nd respondent/ wife/ informant/ defacto complainant filed counter affidavit denying allegations made in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner/A1. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that admittedly petitioners have filed Crl. P. No.2411 of 2024. It is also the contention of the 2nd respondent that most of the witnesses in C.C. No.65 of 2024 are residents of Vizianagaram District, due to that, it is difficult for them to attend before the court at Eluru, if the request of the petitioners to transfer the case is considered. 4. P. No.2411 of 2024. It is also the contention of the 2nd respondent that most of the witnesses in C.C. No.65 of 2024 are residents of Vizianagaram District, due to that, it is difficult for them to attend before the court at Eluru, if the request of the petitioners to transfer the case is considered. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that though the petitioners moved an application to quash the proceedings, wherein, this Court passed order dispensing with presence of petitioners 2 to 6, but 1st petitioner has to attend before the court at Bobbili in C.C. No.65 of 2024. He would further submit that 1st petitioner is working as Finance Officer in IIIT College, Nuziveedu, which is at a distance of 400 Kms from Bobbili and it has no proper transport facility. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that some of the witnesses are also residents of West Godavari District and 2nd respondent is also working as Medical Officer at Chintalapudi of West Godavari District, due to that, it may not be difficult for the prosecution to proceed with the trial if the request of the petitioners to transfer the case is considered. He prays to allow the petition. 5. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that petitioners having obtained interim orders in Crl. P. No.2411 of 2024 dispensing with presence of petitioners 2 to 6 before the court in C.C. No.65 of 2024, again moved an application seeking for transfer only to avoid to attend before the court at Bobbili for pre-trial examination. He would further submit that most of the witnesses in C.C. No.65 of 2024 are residents of Bobbili and entire investigation also conducted by Therlam Police Station of Vizianagaram District, due to that, request of the petitioners to transfer the case cannot be considered. He prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha v. State of West Bengal & others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 268, judgment dated 17.03.2023 while considering the transfer of criminal case has held that the transfer of the cases 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 ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Wherein it is also discussed ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India, 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 Cr.P.C. 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.” 7. In the present case, admittedly the 2nd respondent lodged a report before the SHO, Therlam Police Station, against the petitioners for dowry harassment, wherein SHO after due investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners vide C.C. No.65 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. In the present case, admittedly the 2nd respondent lodged a report before the SHO, Therlam Police Station, against the petitioners for dowry harassment, wherein SHO after due investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners vide C.C. No.65 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. A perusal of copy of charge sheet in C.C. No.65 of 2024 shows that prosecution has arrayed sixteen witnesses, out of them LWs.1 to 9 are private witnesses, who are residents of Vizianagaram District, whereas L.Ws.15 and 16 are investigation officers. It is no doubt true that L.Ws.10 to 14 are residents of West Godavari District to speak about alleged harassment of 2nd respondent by the petitioners. When entire investigation has been done by Therlam Police Station, certainly it would be difficult for the prosecution agency to prosecute the case if request of the petitioners transfer the case is considered to a competent court at Eluru. The witnesses have to attend before the court as and when they receive summons from the court. Though 2nd respondent is shown as first witness in C.C. No.65 of 2024, her presence is required only at the time of recording her evidence before the court. The petitioners 2 to 6 already obtained interim orders from this Court by filing Crl. P. No.2411 of 2024 dispensing with their attendance. After considering the fact that most of the witnesses are residents of Vizianagaram District and entire investigation in C.C. No.65 of 2024 conducted by Therlam Police Station of Vizianagaram District, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer the case from Judicial Magistrate of First Class -cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru of West Godavari District. As 1st petitioner/husband said to be working as Finance Officer in IIIT College, Nuziveedu of Krishna District, if he feels that his attendance before the Court in C.C. No.65 of 2024 is causes hardship to him, he can move an application before the court in C.C. No.65 of 2024 dispensing with his attendance explaining the grounds, which shall be considered by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court – cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, on its own merits. 8. In the result, this transfer criminal petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. In the result, this transfer criminal petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. The Interim stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.