ORDER : 1. I have heard learned counsel, Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam representing on behalf of Smt. A. Padma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Raj Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr. P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr. P.C.”) seeking transfer of C.C. No. 328 of 2016 from the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Hindupur to Special Judge for Trial of Cases of SC’s and ST’s (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Ananthapuramu. The case of the petitioners in brief is that there is a dispute with regard to the agricultural land between themselves and R2 to R5 and then R2 to R5 filed O.S. No. 194 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur, claiming right over the agricultural land and the said suit was dismissed, against which they preferred appeal before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur, which was also dismissed. The petitioners submit that on 21.07.2015 R2 to R5 violated the Decree and Judgment in O.S. No. 144 of 2001 and trespassed into the agricultural land and obstructed their possession, due to that they lodged a report before SHO, Lepakshi Police Station vide Cr. No. 63 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC, wherein SHO after due investigation filed charge sheet against R2 to R5 vide C.C. No. 328 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, wherein trial of the case is not yet commenced. It is also the contention of the petitioners that as a counter R2 to R5 have lodged a report against them on 13.10.2015 vide Cr. No. 51 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 379 r/w 34 IPC and Section and 3 (1) (8) (4) of SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, which is pending as S.C. No. 20 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of SC, ST cases, Ananthapuramu, wherein also trial is not yet commenced. The main contention of the petitioners is that in C.C. No. 328 of 2016 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur and S.C. No. 20 of 2018 pending on the file of Special Judge, Ananthapuramu, the subject matter is agricultural land in Sy. No. 7/2 to an extent of Ac.4-90 cents and parties in both cases are one and the same, due to that instead of conducting trial in different Courts and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they sought transfer of C.C. No. 328 of 2016 from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Hindupur to Special Court at Ananthapuramu by filing transfer petition before District Judge, which was dismissed without considering the factual aspects. It is also the contention of the petitioners that subject matter and dispute and parties in both cases are one and the same, due to that both have to be tried by Special Court to avoid conflicting decisions. They pray to allow the petition. 3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners would submit that dispute between the parties in respect of agricultural land and accused and witnesses in both the cases are common, as the petitioners herein are accused in S.C. No. 20 of 2018, whereas R2 to R5 are accused in C.C. No. 328 of 2016 wherein petitioners are witnesses. She would further submit that though alleged incident said to be occurred on different dates, when parties contentions of both sides are same, both cases have to be tried and disposed of by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions. She prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter-affidavit with regard to the facts of the case and finally prays to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned counsel for R2 though not filed counter-affidavit opposed the contention of the petitioners on the ground that incidents in both cases are not similar to consider that both cases are the case and counter case to be tried by the same Court. He would further submit that learned Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu rightly considered all facts and dismissed the petition. He prays to dismiss the petition. 6. He would further submit that learned Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu rightly considered all facts and dismissed the petition. He prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is: Whether there are any grounds to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer C.C. No. 328 of 2016 from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur to Special Sessions Court for Trial of SC’s and ST’s (Prevention of Atrocities Act)-cum-VIII Additional District Court, Ananthapuramu, to try along with S.C. No. 20 of 2018? POINT: 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. (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise. (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. (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. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 8. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha vs. State of West Bengal and Others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 268 judgment dated 17.03.2023 while considering the transfer of criminal case has held that transfer of the cases has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspirations 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 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 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. (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. (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. Learned Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu while dismissing the transfer petition filed by the petitioners observed at Para 7 that “On careful perusal of record i.e. First Information report in Cr. No. 51/2016 and Cr. No. 63/2015 of Lepakshi Police Station which discloses that the incident in Cr. No. 51 2016 was occurred on 13.07.2016 at about 9:00 PM and the incident in Cr. No. 63/2015 was occurred on 25.08.2015 at about 11-00 AM. Hence there is no consistency in the contention of the petitioners that both incidents arose out of the same incident and they are case and counter cases. On close scrutiny of record the complaint given by one Subbarayappa, who is Respondent No. 2 herein mentioned the date of the offence took place on 13.10.2015 at 9-00 p.m. which thrown a doubt about the occurrence of alleged offences between the petitioners and respondents. Therefore this Court is not in a position to believe the contentions of the petitioners. Hence, the petition suffers with lack of merits and this Court has not find any reasonable grounds to transfer C.C. 328/2016 from the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur to the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu to try along with S.C. No. 20/2018 Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point is answered.” 10. A perusal of copy of FIR in Cr. No. 63 of 2015 of Lepakshi Police Station, Ananthapuramu Judicial District which shows that offence occurred on 25.08.2015 at 10.00 am and information received by the police on 26.08.2015 at 10.00 am and scene of offence is at agricultural fields of petitioners herein. Accordingly, point is answered.” 10. A perusal of copy of FIR in Cr. No. 63 of 2015 of Lepakshi Police Station, Ananthapuramu Judicial District which shows that offence occurred on 25.08.2015 at 10.00 am and information received by the police on 26.08.2015 at 10.00 am and scene of offence is at agricultural fields of petitioners herein. On the basis on said report, SHO investigated the case and filed charge sheet against R2 to R5 vide C.C. No. 328 of 2016 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hindupur for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC, wherein 1st petitioner herein is shown as one of the witness and other witnesses are also residents of Thimmaganipalli Village Lepakshi Mandal, excluding the S.I of police, Lepakshi Police Station. 11. A perusal of copy of FIR in Cr. No. 51 of 2016 which shows that alleged incident occurred on 13.10.2015 information received to police station on 13.07.2016 which lodged by R2 on 13.07.2015 (it appears that the date, year receiving information is wrongly noted in the copy of FIR). A copy of report lodged by R2 before SHO, Lepakshi Police Station shows that alleged incident occurred on 13.10.2015 but the date of report is shown as 13.07.2015 wherein SHO after due investigation filed charge sheet against petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 r/w 34 IPC and 3 (1) (8) (4) of SC &ST Prohibition of Atrocities Act vide S.C. No. 20 of 2018 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu, which clearly shows that incident in Crime No. 63 of 2015 occurred on 25.08.2015 and the incident in Cr. No. 51 of 2016 occurred on 13.10.2015 which prima-facie shows that both cases are not occurred at one and the same time though which is said to be between the same parties and scene of offence in Cr. No. 51 of 2016 is at the house of the complainant Thimmaganipalli village in agricultural fields. So, the date of occurrence, place of occurrence in both cases is not similar though it is between the same parties. In those circumstances, it cannot be considered that both cases are case and counter case and decision in any one case will affect the decision in another case and that those cases need not be tried by same Court. So, the date of occurrence, place of occurrence in both cases is not similar though it is between the same parties. In those circumstances, it cannot be considered that both cases are case and counter case and decision in any one case will affect the decision in another case and that those cases need not be tried by same Court. Even otherwise, C.C. No. 328 of 2016 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, triable by Judicial First Class Magistrate, whereas S.C. No. 20 of 2018 triable by Special Sessions Judge. If the request of the petitioners to transfer C.C. No. 328 of 2016 wherein R2 to R5 are the accused to special Sessions Court is considered certainly either party will loose right of appeal before the Sessions Court. This Court is of an opinion that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer C.C. No. 328 of 2016 from the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur to Special Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu, to try along with S.C. No. 20 of 2018. 12. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The interim stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.