Madhusudhan Rao Grandhe vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6690 Tel

      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

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

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

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

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

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