HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU TR.CRL.PETITION NO.73 OF 2010 Date: 07.04.2010 Between: Smt.Sheik Hafeeza Sultana @ Hassma, …..Petitioner And: The State of A.P. through the Public Prosecutor And others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU TR.CRL.PETITION NO.73 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/defacto-complainant seeks transfer of P.R.C. No.23 of 2009 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Madanapalle to the Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Kadapa. The case relates to offences under Sections 498-A, 307/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are 9 accused persons in this case who are shown as the respondents 2 to 10 herein. 2) Two grounds are urged by the petitioner’s counsel for transfer of the case from Madanapalle to Kadapa. The first ground is that the petitioner suffered serious burn injuries in this crime and became heart patient and is not in a position to undertake travel from Kadapa where she is living, to Madanapalle where the case is pending. The second ground is that there is threat for her life in case she goes to Madanapalle for attending Court in this case. In my opinion, both the grounds are not valid grounds in law. Convenience of the defacto-complainant alone cannot be the criterion to determine the place where committal and trial should take place. In case the case is transferred from Madanapalle to Kadapa, then A-1 to A-9 have to travel the same distance from Madanapalle to Kadapa on every date of adjournment before committal and during trial after committal. Further, the police of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle have to attend the Court at Kadapa on every date of adjournment. Witnesses from Madanapalle also should attend Kadapa instead of Madanapalle. On the other hand, the defacto-complainant/victim/the petitioner is expected to attend on only one date of adjournment for giving evidence during trial. Therefore, balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner/defacto- complainant. 3. Now, the matter is taken up by the police and the matter is pending in the trial Court. In case there is any threat for life of the defacto-complainant, then the police will take necessary steps to safeguard her life when she goes to Madanapalle for giving evidence. Thus, I do not find any valid or legal grounds to transfer the case from Madanapalle to Kadapa. 4. Further, the prayer in this petition is also inappropriate because P.R.C. No.23 of 2009 cannot be transferred to Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Kadapa, but it can only be transferred to a Magistrate Court. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 07, 2010 KSH