HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,
79, 80 AND 81 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
These Transfer Criminal Petitions are filed seeking for
transfer of the cases.
2. Tr.Crl.P.No.73 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to
transfer C.C.N.I.No.1980 of 2022 from the file of the Court of
XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; Tr.Crl.P.No.74 of 2022
is filed seeking the Court to transfer C.C.N.I.No.9080 of 2022
from the file of the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad; Tr.Crl.P.No.75 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to
transfer C.C.No.808 of 2017 from the file of the Court of IX
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad;
Tr.Crl.P.No.76 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to transfer
C.C.No.12394 of 2019 from the file of the Court of II Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; Tr.Crl.P.No.77 of
2022 is filed seeking the Court to transfer C.C.N.I.No.14314 of
2022 from the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad; Tr.Crl.P.No.78 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to
Dr.CSL, J
Tr.Crl.P.Nos.73 to 81 of 2022
2
transfer C.C.No.19271 of 2019 from the file of the Court of IX
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad;
Tr.Crl.P.No.79 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to transfer
C.C.N.I.No.14928 of 2022 from the file of the Court of IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; Tr.Crl.P.No.80 of 2022 is
filed seeking the Court to transfer C.C.N.I.No.2030 of 2021 from
the file of the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad;
and Tr.Crl.P.No.81 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to transfer
C.C.N.I.No.13127 of 2022 from the file of the Court of VIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. All the cases were requested to be transferred to the Court
of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
4. By the material available on record, what could be
perceived is that the parties to the proceedings are one and the
same in all the aforementioned cases.
5. Heard Sri T.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is
representing respondent No.1-State as well as Sri Aadesh
Varma, learned counsel for 2nd respondent-complainant.
Dr.CSL, J Tr.Crl.P.Nos.73 to 81 of 2022 3
6. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that some of the cases are filed under Negotiable Instruments Act and rest invoking different provisions of IPC. All those are pending at different Courts but on the same subject matter. Initially all the cases were instituted before the same Court, but subsequently, the cases were transferred on administrative reasons to different Courts and, thereafter, on abolition of the Special Magistrate Courts, again transfer of cases was affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the nature of dispute in all the cases i.e. in the cases filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and other Calendar Cases is one and the same.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the defence that would be taken by the petitioner-accused in all the cases is one and the same and if in one of the cases, the defence taken is revealed, the 2nd respondent-complainant would try to win over the case by finding a solution to overcome the defence taken by the petitioner and, therefore, it would be wholly desirable that all the cases are tried by one and the same Court. Learned counsel further submits that though the Dr.CSL, J Tr.Crl.P.Nos.73 to 81 of 2022 4 petitioner moved transfer applications before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as the Courts of Special Magistrates were abolished and the files could not be traced at that time, Transfer Petitions were dismissed granting liberty to make a fresh one, in case required. Learned counsel also submitted that if the cases are tried by one and the same Court, it would avoid conflict of judgments and thus, substantial justice can be rendered.
8. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner is playing several tactics to delay the proceedings. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also stated that the petitioner filed different applications before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge seeking the same relief and those applications stood dismissed and, on the same grounds, the petitioner again approached this Court and, therefore, the relief sought for should not be granted. Learned counsel also submitted that in one of the cases, 2nd respondent filed a Criminal Petition before this Court and this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter within two months and to overcome the same and in Dr.CSL, J Tr.Crl.P.Nos.73 to 81 of 2022 5 the series of delaying tactics, the petitioner moved these applications and, therefore, these petitions are liable to be dismissed.
9. It is not in dispute that the parties are same and the subject matter is also similar. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner may adopt delaying tactics, even if the cases are transferred, and that would affect the rights of the 2nd respondent.
10. Transfer of cases does not mean that the Court to which the cases are transferred has to deal with the matters simultaneously or record common evidence. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice, if all the matters are taken up for trial by the same Court. However, having regard to the apprehension of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent, this Court considers it desirable to pass appropriate orders in that regard.
11. Resultantly, all the Transfer Criminal Petitions are allowed.
Dr.CSL, J Tr.Crl.P.Nos.73 to 81 of 2022 6
12. C.C.N.I.Nos.1980 of 2022, C.C.No.9080 of 2022, C.C.No.808 of 2017, C.C.No.12394 of 2019, C.C.N.I.No.14314 of 2022, C.C.No.19271 of 2019, C.C.N.I.No.14928 of 2022, C.C.N.I.No.2030 of 2021 and C.C.N.I.No.13127 of 2022 are withdrawn from the Courts of XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, respectively, and transferred to the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. However, it is specifically indicated that all the cases shall be tried independently and not jointly. Stall of proceedings/stay of proceedings/stage of proceedings in one case shall not bar the trial and conclusion of the proceedings in other cases.
13. Having regard to the age of the cases, the Courts concerned are directed to transmit entire case records Dr.CSL, J Tr.Crl.P.Nos.73 to 81 of 2022 7 immediately to the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in any case, not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Date: 12.12.2022 Note: CC by 14.12.2022 B/o.
svl