Surisetti Jahnavi vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 657 AP

       THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

         TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.58 of 2019

ORDER:-

       This transfer criminal petition is filed under Section 407 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking to

withdraw C.C.No.1843 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to

the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kakinada, East Godavari District.


2.     The petitioner herein is the wife of 2nd respondent herein,

who is accused No.1 in C.C.No.1843 of 2017 registered for the

offences punishable under Section 498-A, 509 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

3. The facts of the petition, in nutshell are that the marriage of

the petitioner was solemnized with the 2nd respondent herein on

13.03.2017 by giving dowry of Rs.25 lakhs and other lanchanams.

Thereafter due to some disputes cropped up between the petitioner

and 2nd respondent, C.C.No.1843 of 2017 came to be registered at

the instance of the petitioner herein. Subsequent to registration of

the case, the 2nd respondent completely neglected to maintain the

petitioner, as such she filed D.V.C.No.30 of 2018 and M.C.No.5 of

2018 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kakinada, East Godavari District. It is also stated that in spite of

pendency of criminal proceedings against the respondents 2 to 4,

the 2nd respondent flew away to United State of America and the 1st

respondent-police did not take any steps to secure his presence.

The petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent had

authorized one Dindi Kiran Kumar to represent on his behalf.

Hence, in order to avoid conflict of opinions in the above cases, the

petitioner has approached this Court

4. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-

State. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo showing

proof of service notice on respondents 2 to 4, but none appeared

on their behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since

D.V.C.No.30 of 2018 and M.C.No.5 of 2018 filed by the petitioner

are pending on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, it is just and necessary to

transfer C.C.No.1843 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam to Kakinada in order to

avoid conflicting of opinions. He submits that the 1st respondent-

police did not take any steps to secure the presence of the

respondents, which caused much delay in proceeding with the

case.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner as D.V.C.No.30 of 2018

and M.C.No.5 of 2018 filed by her are pending at Kakinada, it is

necessary to transfer C.C.No.1843 of 2017 on the file of I

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam to

Kakinada. It is indeed needless to make emphasis that the trial in

a criminal case is completely different from enquiry in maintenance

case or domestic violence case. The acquittal or conviction in a

criminal case cannot conclude the enquiry proceedings in the

maintenance case or domestic violence case. The Hon'ble Apex

Court and this Court laid down the law in catena of judgments

with regard to above proposition of law. Therefore, the contention

of the petitioner that in order to avoid conflicting of opinions, it is

necessary to transfer C.C.No.1843 of 2017 from Visakhapatnam to

Kakinada is devoid of merits.

7. In the result, the transfer criminal petition is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

5th February, 2021

PVD

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(DISMISSED)

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.58 of 2019

5th February, 2021

PVD