Andhra Pradesh HC Transfers NI Act Case to Nellore, Faults Sessions Judge for Ignoring Woman Accused's Hardship

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside a Sessions Court transfer dismissal, finding the judge ignored a woman's 100-km travel burden and threats from the complainant, and directly transferred the case to Nellore.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, sitting at Amaravati, has transferred a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, to the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, sitting singly, allowed Criminal Revision Case No. 194 of 2026 on 29 April 2026, setting aside an order of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, dated 4 November 2025, which had dismissed the petitioner's transfer application without examining the merits of her plea. The court found that the Sessions Judge had confined himself entirely to a jurisdictional question under Section 142(2) of the NI Act and had failed to exercise the transfer jurisdiction available to him under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Mekala Sindhu Priya, a 28-year-old resident of Gudipallipadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, is the accused in C.C. No. 111 of 2024, a cheque dishonour case filed by G. Hazarath before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet. Sullurpet is approximately 100 kilometres from Nellore, where the petitioner resides.

The petitioner had earlier moved Transfer Crl.M.P. No. 1230 of 2025 before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, seeking transfer of the Sullurpet case to any competent court at Nellore. That petition was dismissed on 4 November 2025 on the ground that the Sessions Judge lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the NI Act to order such a transfer. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision before the High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. G. Sree Deepthi, submitted that the petitioner, being a woman, faces considerable hardship travelling 100 kilometres to Sullurpet on every date of hearing. She further submitted that multiple cases initiated by the petitioner's husband against her and her family members are already pending before courts at Nellore, and that the present complaint was filed by G. Hazarath—described as a close associate of the husband—with the purpose of harassing her. The petitioner also apprehended threats and harm from G. Hazarath if she continued to attend proceedings at Sullurpet. Respondent No. 2 did not appear despite service of notice on his counsel before the trial court.

The Legal Issue: Jurisdiction Under Section 142(2) NI Act Versus Transfer Powers Under the Code

The central legal question was whether the Sessions Judge was right to dismiss the transfer petition solely on the ground that Section 142(2) of the NI Act restricted his territorial jurisdiction, without addressing the substantive grounds raised by the petitioner.

Section 142(2) of the NI Act contains specific provisions governing the court before which a cheque dishonour complaint may be filed. The Sessions Judge read this provision as limiting his power to transfer the case. The High Court, however, drew a distinction between the jurisdictional question under the NI Act and the broader transfer jurisdiction available under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 448 of the BNSS). The court held that even if the Sessions Judge concluded he lacked jurisdiction under Section 142(2), that conclusion did not justify dismissing the petition without any consideration of the petitioner's substantive grounds.

The court also held that the dismissal by the Sessions Judge did not bar the High Court from examining the transfer request in exercise of its own powers under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 447 of the BNSS).

How the Bench Reasoned

Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa found that the Sessions Judge's order suffered from a clear non-application of mind and a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The judge had disposed of the petition in a mechanical manner, focusing solely on the jurisdictional bar under Section 142(2) of the NI Act, while remaining entirely silent on the petitioner's specific pleas: her undue hardship in travelling 100 kilometres, the pendency of related proceedings at Nellore, and her apprehension of harm from the complainant.

The court observed that 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. The Sessions Judge's failure to appreciate this larger object was, in the court's view, a clear error.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 6 SCC 204, which held that “the purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations” and that convenience of parties, including witnesses, is a relevant consideration for deciding a transfer petition.

Applying those principles, the court identified three factors that weighed in favour of transfer: the petitioner's residence at Nellore and the 100-kilometre distance to Sullurpet; the pendency of multiple proceedings between the petitioner and her husband before courts at Nellore; and the apprehension of harm from G. Hazarath, who is alleged to be a close associate of the husband. The court found that no prejudice would be caused to G. Hazarath if the case were transferred to Nellore, whereas the petitioner would face considerable hardship if required to continue attending at Sullurpet.

Outcome

The Criminal Revision Case was allowed. The order dated 4 November 2025 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Transfer Crl.M.P. No. 1230 of 2025 was set aside. C.C. No. 111 of 2024, pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, was transferred to the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.