Allowed

Prathikantam Gunavardhan Raju v. Prathikantham Uma Venkata Satyarenuka

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2021TRCRLP/29/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer criminal petition sought to move a maintenance case from Chintalapudi to Vijayawada due to safety threats and travel difficulties. The court instead transferred the matter to Eluru, finding it more convenient given the respondent's residence there while balancing safety concerns.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance petition M.C.No.12 of 2019 transferred from Judicial Magistrate, Chintalapudi to Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Prathikantam Gunavardhan Raju Vs Prathikantham Uma Venkata Satyarenuka — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.29 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This transfer criminal petition is filed under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to withdraw M.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District or to any other competent Court.

¶4

The facts of the petition, in brief are that the petitioner married the 1^st respondent in the year 2012 and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a male child, who is suffering with Eczema disease, as such the 1^st respondent treated the child as big burden and threatening to strangulate him for disturbing her sleep during nights and also stated that she would leave him in her parents’ house to get rid-off her responsibility. Thereafter the 1^st respondent left the matrimonial home with a demand that she will come back if the petitioner’s mother agreed to transfer the house built by his father in favour of 1^st respondent or else, she will file false dowry harassment cases against them. It is stated that because of the harassment of the 1^st respondent, petitioner lost his job and taking care of his aged mother and surviving mostly on her family pension and loans. The 1^st petitioner was also taking care of his son, who suffering with Eczema.

¶5

It is stated that in the year 2016 the 1^st respondent gave a false report against the petitioner and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. On the birthday of his son i.e.

¶6

¶7

27.09.2016 the 1^st respondent brought two subordinate officers of Mr.Dasu, Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi to his residence at Hyderabad and forcibly took away his son and car. Then the petitioner gave a report to D.I.G and D.G.P, Andhra Pradesh who sought a detailed report in this matter from the concerned officers. While so, the 1^st respondent filed M.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi seeking maintenance. On 03.01.2020 when the petitioner went to Chintalapudi to attend the Court, few persons arranged by 1^st respondent attacked him and tried to forcibly take him and also warned that they will see his end, if he again comes to the Court. In this regard, he gave a report to Chintalapudi police, when they failed to take action. Then he sent the report through post to D.G.P.

¶8

Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 3^rd respondent-State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is residing at Hyderabad and he has to travel all the way to Chintalapudi to attend the Court, which has no direct transport facility and further, there is threat to his life. To demonstrate the same, he has given a report to D.G.P., who in turn suspended Mr.Dasu, Inspector of Police, which strengthens the case of the petitioner, as to how the 1^st respondent in high handed manner with the support of police took away his child and car. He submits that though the 1^st respondent filed the case at Chintalapudi, she

¶10

¶11

is staying in Eluru because of her employment and the distance between Eluru and Chintalapudi is nearly 50 KMs. He submits that as the petitioner is also not staying in Chintalapudi and taking into consideration the threat perception to the petitioner, if the case is transferred from Chintalapudi to Vijayawada, it will be convenient for the petitioner to attend the Court.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that all these grounds are invented for the purpose of filing this petition. He submits that maintenance case is filed in the year 2019, whereas the reports given by the petitioner to the D.G.P are very recent. He further submits that it will be very difficult for the 1^st respondent to travel, if the M.C. is transferred to Vijayawada and he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶13

Taking into consideration the representation given by the petitioner and further correspondence from the D.G.P office and the fact that one Dasu, Inspector of Police was suspended clearly demonstrates that the police dealt with the petitioner in a high handed manner and forcibly took away his son and car. It is also contended that the wife is residing in Eluru in view of her employment and the distance between Eluru and Chintalapudi is 50 KMs, which is not disputed by the 1^st respondent. Taking all these factors into consideration, this Court is of the view that interests of justice will be met, if the M.C.No.12 of 2019 is transferred to the competent Court at Eluru.

¶14

Accordingly, the transfer criminal petition is allowed and the M.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District is withdrawn and the same is

¶15

¶16

transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District for disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶17

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

¶18

stand closed.

¶19

___________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

17^th March, 2021 PVD

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

(ALLOWED)

¶24

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.29 of 2020

¶25

17^th March, 2021

¶26

PVD

Prathikantam Gunavardhan Raju v. Prathikantham Uma Venkata Satyarenuka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathikantam Gunavardhan Raju v. Prathikantham Uma Venkata Satyarenuka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalintha Bhanu Prakash Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalintha Bhanu Praksah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalintha Bhanu Praksah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velkumar Arunachalam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Janam Nagaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondamanchali Manchali Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh