The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a transfer petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), reinforcing that mere apprehensions of bias or inconvenience, without substantive evidence, are insufficient grounds for transferring criminal proceedings. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the convenience of all parties, including witnesses and the prosecution, while ensuring that trials are conducted within the jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, comprising the husband (petitioner No.1) and his parents (petitioners No.2 and 3), sought the transfer of C.C.No.2421 of 2022 pending before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, NTR District, to a competent court in Guntur City. The dispute arose from matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 (his wife), leading to multiple legal proceedings:
- A criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 323, and 508 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered as Cr.No.205 of 2022 at Nandigama Police Station
- A charge sheet filed in C.C.No.2421 of 2022 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama
- A Maintenance Case (M.C.No.40 of 2023) and a Domestic Violence Case (D.V.C.No.18 of 2023), both pending before the same court at Nandigama
Key Facts
- The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19.06.2021
- The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on Cr.No.205 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323, and 508 IPC
- Petitioner No.1 is employed as a Helper in Southern Railways at Chennai and resides in Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu
- Petitioners No.2 and 3 are senior citizens aged 58 and 73 years, respectively
- The distance between Thiruvallur and Nandigama is approximately 650 km
- The petitioners claimed difficulty in securing legal representation at Nandigama due to language barriers and local influence of the respondent No.2
- The petitioners alleged intimidation and pressure from local police, though no prima facie evidence was produced
- The trial court posted the three cases on different dates, despite the petitioners' request for a single hearing date
Procedural History
- Cr.No.205 of 2022: Complaint lodged by respondent No.2 at Nandigama Police Station
- C.C.No.2421 of 2022: Charge sheet filed before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama
- M.C.No.40 of 2023 and D.V.C.No.18 of 2023: Maintenance and Domestic Violence cases filed by respondent No.2
- 08.05.2026: Present Transfer Criminal Petition (No.48 of 2026) filed under Section 447 BNS before the Andhra Pradesh High Court
- 15.06.2026: Petition dismissed by the High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Withdrawal of C.C.No.2421 of 2022 from the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama
- Transfer of the case to any other competent court in Guntur City
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether vague allegations of inconvenience, language barriers, and intimidation, without prima facie evidence, justify the transfer of a criminal case under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Additionally, the court examined whether the convenience of the accused alone could outweigh the convenience of witnesses, prosecution, and the larger interest of society in conducting the trial within the jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners contended that they were non-locals unfamiliar with the local language and surroundings at Nandigama, making it difficult to secure proper legal assistance
- They alleged intimidation and pressure from local police, though no evidence was produced to substantiate these claims
- The petitioners argued that the respondent No.2 and her family had considerable local influence, creating an atmosphere not conducive to a fair trial
- They highlighted that three advocates at Nandigama withdrew their vakalaths after attending a few adjournments, allegedly pressuring the petitioners to settle the dispute monetarily
- The trial court posted the cases on different dates, despite the petitioners' request for a single hearing date
For the Respondents
- The Public Prosecutor, representing the State, opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioners failed to produce prima facie evidence of their alleged difficulties or intimidation
- Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the apprehensions of the petitioners were imaginary and based on surmises, lacking any factual basis
- It was emphasized that all witnesses cited in the charge sheet resided within the jurisdiction of Nandigama, and transferring the case to Guntur (approximately 100 km away) would cause inconvenience to the witnesses
- The respondents argued that the petitioners did not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Guntur, rendering the transfer request purposeless
The Court's Analysis
The court meticulously examined the legal principles governing the transfer of criminal cases under Section 447 BNS, emphasizing that such transfers are not granted lightly and must be based on reasonable grounds backed by evidence. The court relied on settled legal precedents, noting that:
"The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and surmises. Vague and vexatious allegations without an element of truth cannot be considered as sufficient ground for transfer of a case."
The court observed that the petitioners' allegations of intimidation and difficulty in securing legal representation were unsubstantiated, as they failed to produce any prima facie evidence to support their claims. The court further noted that:
"The transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably required under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Addressing the convenience argument, the court held that the convenience of the accused alone cannot override the convenience of witnesses, prosecution, and societal interests. The court underscored that:
"The convenience for the purpose of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, witnesses and larger interest of the society."
The court also highlighted that all witnesses cited in the charge sheet resided within the jurisdiction of Nandigama, and transferring the case to Guntur would inconvenience them significantly. Moreover, the petitioners did not reside in Guntur, making the transfer request futile.
The court reiterated the well-settled principle that criminal trials should ordinarily be conducted within the local jurisdiction where the offence occurred, unless exceptional circumstances justify a transfer. The court concluded that the petitioners' apprehensions were misconceived and lacked merit, dismissing the transfer petition.
The Verdict
The Transfer Criminal Petition (No.48 of 2026) was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court held that:
- The petitioners failed to produce prima facie evidence to substantiate their claims of intimidation, language barriers, or difficulty in securing legal representation
- The apprehensions of the petitioners were vague, vexatious, and based on surmises, lacking reasonable grounds
- The convenience of the accused alone cannot justify the transfer of a case, especially when it inconveniences witnesses and the prosecution
- The purpose of the transfer would not be served, as the petitioners did not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Guntur
There was no order as to costs, and any interim orders previously granted were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasonable Apprehension Must Be Backed by Evidence
- Practitioners must ensure that transfer petitions under Section 447 BNS are supported by concrete evidence. Mere allegations of inconvenience, language barriers, or intimidation, without prima facie proof, are insufficient to justify a transfer
- Courts will scrutinize the factual basis of such claims, and vague or unsubstantiated apprehensions are likely to be rejected
Convenience of All Parties Must Be Balanced
- The convenience of the accused alone is not determinative. Courts will consider the convenience of witnesses, prosecution, and societal interests when deciding transfer petitions
- Witnesses' convenience is a critical factor, especially when they reside within the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. Transferring a case to a distant location may inconvenience witnesses and delay justice
Jurisdiction Remains Paramount
- Criminal trials should ordinarily be conducted within the local jurisdiction where the offence occurred. Exceptions are granted only in exceptional circumstances where a fair trial is genuinely at risk
- Non-residence of the accused in the transfer jurisdiction weakens the case for transfer, as it defeats the purpose of relocating the trial
Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
- Document all alleged difficulties (e.g., intimidation, language barriers) with prima facie evidence (e.g., affidavits, witness statements, correspondence with advocates)
- Request consolidation of related cases (e.g., criminal, maintenance, and domestic violence cases) to avoid multiple hearings on different dates
- Argue for transfer only when genuinely necessary, ensuring that the convenience of all parties is addressed in the petition
