3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C.No. 1347 of 2011 Between: Bethalam Lalitha …Petitioner and Bethalam Venkata Subba Raju and others …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.R.C..No. 1347 of 2011 Judgment Heard Sri G. Rajesham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in C.C.No. 359 of 2009 on the file of the court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatala, Guntur District. She filed this petition for transerring the said case from the Court at Bapatla to any other court in Guntur Town. 3. It is seen that the petitioner earlier filed a transfer petition i.e., Tr.Crl.P.No. 587 of 2011 in the Sessions Court, Guntur for the same relief, which she is now seeking. Her case is that the accused-party is threatening her. It may however be noted that the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said application giving certain directions. It would be relevant to note the following portion of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. “It is to be seen that both the counsels submitted that, they are prepared to proceed with the matter and that the petitioner will present before the court on 27.6.2011 and she will be cross examined on behalf of the respondents on the same day. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to be present on 27.6.2011 for further examination on that day. The respondents have to cross examine her on that day itself.” 4. The above portion of the order of the Sessions Judge would show that the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner herein before the Sessions Judge agreed that this petitioner is agreeable for going ahead with the case in Bapatla Court and that they would take all further steps for showing progress in the case. After the above portion of the order, the learned Sessions Judge went on to give certain directions for protecting the interests of the de facto complainant in order to enable her to give evidence without fear. The learned Sessions Judge then observed that there was no reason for transferring the case and accordingly he dismissed it. 5. The petitioner has again now come up with apprehension that there is danger to her safety without mentioning any details. The learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that an untoward incident occurred on 10-2-2011, but the above order of the learned Sessions Judge was passed on 8-6-2011 that is subsequent to the above incident. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the order of the learned Sessions Judge and the reasons recorded by him, I do not see any ground to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. It shall be open for the de facto complainant to make her representation to the concerned court before which the case is pending ventilating her grievances, if any. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 28, 2011. *BVS