1. This Petition is filed by petitioner to withdraw C.C. No. 1912 of 2014 from the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and transfer the
same to any one of the Courts of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C. No. 1912 of 2014 filed against respondents â€" accused for the offences punishable under Sections 193,
419, 420, 424, 467, 471 read with Section 120-B IIPC and Section 24(2) and (3) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Lands Holdings) Act,
1973. He states that he apprehends threat to his life in the hands of Respondents 2 to 4 in view of the civil disputes pending between them. According
to petitioner, though respondents - accused are not attending the Court, the learned Junior Civil Judge is not taking serious view of the matter. Hence,
he seeks transfer of C.C. to any one of the junior civil judge’s courts, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri C. Ramesh Sagar submits that petitioner filed an Appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-III
Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and on an Application seeking transfer, this Court by order dated 25.06.2015 in Tr. C.M.P.No. 134 of 2014
transferred the said Appeal to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar and the same is pending. Petitioner also filed a
criminal case C.C.No. 1912 of 2014 in the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar and in that case, charges were also framed.
The said case was made over to the Court of PCR, Karimnagar. The learned Judge said that he had no jurisdiction to try the case and the case was
sent to II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. On that day, after waiting for considerable time, P.Ws. 2 and 3 left the Court. The case was
called on 05.07.2019 before closing hours and again fresh summons were issued to P.Ws.2 and 3. It is submitted that even when the witnesses were
present, learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge failed to record the evidence on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to try the case. Again, the
matter was adjourned to 01.08.2019 for hearing on the point of jurisdiction. It is submitted that when a crime was registered against petitioner, he
moved this Court and filed quash petition i.e. Crl.P. No. 5886 of 2008, wherein a direction was issued to the Station House Officer, Karimnagar not to
arrest the petitioner till filing of the charge sheet and after examining six witnesses, the said case was closed. It is stated that Respondent No.2 filed
an Application before the DIG, Karimnagar in November, 2011 for reopening Crime No. 197 of 2008 and the same was reopened. Again the same
was questioned before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8904 of 2012. It is stated that cases were also filed not only against petitioner, but also his
counsel. Though petitioner is attending Courts at Karimnagar, respondents - accused are not attending and learned Judge is not issuing non-bailable
warrants to them and more sympathy is shown by Courts towards them. It is stated that petitioner is apprehending threat in the hands of Respondents
2 to 4 as they were in frustration. Hence, learned counsel submits that C.C.No. 1912 of 2014 may be withdrawn from the Court of II Additional Junior
Civil Judge’s Court at Karimnagar.
4. Though notice was served on respondents - accused, none appears on their behalf.
5. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused the material on record, though in the affidavit, petitioner narrated several events and litigation
pending between him and respondents â€" accused, except stating that learned Magistrate is showing favoritism to respondents â€" accused and there
is threat to his life, he could not make out any valuable ground for seeking indulgence of this Court for transfer of the case from Karimnagar. If there
is threat to petitioner from respondents - accused, he ought to have lodged a report with the police. On that aspect also, affidavit is silent. Basing on
these frivolous allegations on judicial officers, matters cannot be transferred from one Court to the other. If the cases are transferred just for mere
asking, dispensation of justice will become a herculean task.
6. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for
transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. something
more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is
to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test
the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having
jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate when - the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties
and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.
One of the common circumstances alleged in applications for transfer is the avoidance of substantial prejudice to a party or witnesses on account of
logistics or like factors, especially when an alternative venue will not seriously handicap the complainant and will mitigate the serious difficulties of the
accused. In the present case the petitioner claims that both the parties reside in Delhi and some formal witnesses belong to Delhi; but the meat of the
matter, in a case of defamation is something different. The main witnesses are those who speak to having read the offending matter and other
relevant circumstances flowing therefrom. They belong to Bombay in this case and the suggestion of the petitioner’s counsel that Delhi readers
may be substitute witnesses and the complainant may content herself with examining such person is too presumptuous for serious consideration.
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167
7. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner could not make out a ground much less a valid ground for transfer of the case from the
Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to any of the Junior Civil Judge’s Courts, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.
8. The Transfer Criminal Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
