The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while deciding a plea for transfer of a criminal case, courts must give due weight to the convenience of the parties, especially women litigants, and the larger interest of justice. Setting aside an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, the High Court transferred a cheque dishonour case from Sullurpet to Nellore after finding that the transfer request had been rejected without examining the petitioner’s genuine grievances.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by Mekala Sindhu Priya, who is facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No.111 of 2024 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet.
She had earlier approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, seeking transfer of the case to a court in Nellore. Her plea was rejected on the ground that the Sessions Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that she resides in Nellore, around 100 kilometres from Sullurpet, making every court appearance difficult. She also stated that several disputes involving her and her husband were already pending before courts in Nellore. According to her, the present complaint had been filed through her husband's close associate and she expressed apprehension about her safety while attending proceedings at Sullurpet.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed that the Sessions Judge had dismissed the transfer petition solely on the question of territorial jurisdiction without considering the substantive grounds raised by the petitioner.
The Court said,
“The purpose of transfer jurisdiction is not merely procedural. It is intended to ensure that litigants are not subjected to unnecessary hardship and that the ends of justice are effectively secured.”
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court reiterated that convenience of parties, particularly that of a woman litigant, avoidance of multiple proceedings, and the overall balance of convenience are relevant considerations while deciding transfer petitions.
The Court further noted that the Sessions Judge failed to examine the petitioner's plea regarding travel hardship, pending litigation in Nellore, and her apprehension of harm. It held that the order reflected non-application of mind and failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested under the law governing transfer of criminal cases.
Finding that transferring the case would not prejudice the complainant but would significantly reduce the hardship faced by the petitioner, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition.
The Court set aside the order dated 4 November 2025 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, and directed that C.C. No.111 of 2024 be transferred from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, to the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.
Pending miscellaneous applications were also ordered to stand closed.
Case Details
Case Title: Mekala Sindhu Priya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No. 194 of 2026
Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Decision Date: 29 April 2026
