AP High Court Transfers Cheque Bounce Case For 'Convenience' Of Female Accused

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has transferred a cheque bounce case instituted against a woman from Sullurpet to Nellore, observing that convenience of parties specially of woman litigants is a relevant factor which must be taken into account while considering transfer petitions. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 109]

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a woman accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, who sought transfer of the proceedings from Sullurpet to Nellore, citing the hardship of travelling nearly 100 kilometres for every hearing and the pendency of multiple disputes with her husband before courts at Nellore.

The Court observed:

"It is well settled that while considering a transfer petition, the paramount consideration is whether such transfer is necessary for the ends of justice. Convenience of parties, particularly that of a woman litigant, the possibility of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, and the overall balance of convenience are relevant factors to be taken into account"

The court said that the sessions courts order disclosed that the transfer petition was not rejected on merits but only on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

The court noted that the Sessions Judge concluded that he lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of N.I.Act to transfer the case pending before the Court at Sullurpet, however the petition could not have been dismissed in a mechanical manner without adverting to the substantial grounds urged by the Petitioner.

"The transfer petition disclosed that the Petitioner is a woman residing at Nellore, that she was required to travel a considerable distance on every date of hearing, and that several proceedings between her and her husband were already pending before Courts at Nellore. The order under challenge reveals that the learned Sessions Judge confined himself solely to the question of territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of N.I. Act and failed to appreciate the larger object underlying transfer provisions under the Code and thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 408 of Cr.P.C.

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. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the dismissal of the petition in limine has resulted in a failure to address the genuine difficulties stated by the Petitioner. Therefore, the dismissal of the said petition does not preclude this Court from examining the request for transfer in exercise of its powers under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 447 of BNSS)."

The petitioner had earlier approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, seeking transfer of the cheque bounce proceedings from Sullurpet to Nellore. The Sessions Court, however, dismissed the plea on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that she was a resident of Nellore who had to travel nearly 100 kilometres to attend each hearing at Sullurpet, while several disputes between her and her husband were already pending before courts at Nellore.

The petitioner also expressed apprehension of harm from the complainant if she continued to attend proceedings at Sullurpet and argued that consolidation of proceedings at Nellore would better serve the interests of justice.

The High Court noted that the Sessions Judge had rejected the transfer petition solely on the issue of territorial jurisdiction without considering the substantial grounds raised by the petitioner.

The Court held that the transfer petition had not been dismissed on merits and that the lower court failed to appreciate the broader purpose underlying transfer provisions.

"The learned Judge failed to appreciate the settled legal position that transfer proceedings are not constrained by such a narrow approach, but are intended to secure fairness, convenience of parties, and the effective administration of justice," the Court observed.

Finding that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the matter was transferred, whereas the petitioner would face considerable hardship if required to continue attending proceedings at Sullurpet, the Court held that transfer was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Sessions Court's order and directed that the case pending at Sullurpet be transferred to a competent court at Nellore.

Case Title: Mekala Sindhu Priya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 194 of 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. G. Sree Deepthi

Counsel for Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 109