Allowed

Smt.M.Hymavathi, Amberpet, Hyd., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

Telangana HC11 Oct 2018TRCRLP/75/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge hearing a transfer criminal petition, permitting the transfer of two criminal complaints from Kothagudem to Hyderabad to ensure the convenience of the female petitioner and consolidate trial with a related case.

What did the court decide?

C.C.Nos.276 and 275 of 2012 transferred to IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, to be tried with C.C.No.686 of 2004.

Smt.M.Hymavathi, Amberpet, Hyd., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr. — Telangana HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

TRANSFER CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON Nos.7 5 an d 7 6 of 2 0 1 3

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These petitions are filed seeking for transfer of C.C.No.276 and 275 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem to the court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, to be tried along with C.C.No.686 of 2004.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent. None appears for the 2^nd respondent in spite of notice.

¶6

The complaints filed by the complainant were taken cognizance in C.C.Nos.276 and 275 of 2012 for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, while C.C.No.686 of 2014 was filed for the offence under Section 420 IPC, based on the fact of dishonour of cheques.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the husband of the petitioner was kidnapped and at that time 10 cheques were forcibly taken away from her and in that regard, she intimated the same to the Manager of the Bank by virtue of a letter, dated 01.08.2011.

¶8

A perusal of the said letter shows that the cheque numbers were also mentioned in the said letter. Both the complaints were filed in the year 2000. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, being a lady and resident of Hyderabad, is facing

¶9

¶10

difficulty to attend the court at Kothagudem for the purpose of trial.

¶11

Hence, considering the above facts, this court opines that the transfer, as sought for, can be permitted.

¶12

The Transfer Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, allowed and C.C.No.276 and 275 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem are transferred to the court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, to be tried along with C.C.No.686 of 2004.

¶13

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶14

shall stand closed.

¶15

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
T. RAJANI , J
October 11, 2018
LMV

Smt.M.Hymavathi, Amberpet, Hyd., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Hymavathi, Amberpet, Hyd., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Nirwan Vs the State of Ap., and Another

Bojja Sreenivasulu and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Vega Shailaja and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Co. LTd., Vs The State of A.P.

T.S.Sudhakar and Anothers Vs State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

Puvula Mohan Babu , P.Naga Mohan Parankusam Babu Vs the State of Ap., through Sub Inspector and Anothers