Allowed

Smt. K. Sridevi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2020TRCRLP/6/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a transfer criminal petition to move a criminal case from Cyberabad to Khammam. The transfer was granted to consolidate proceedings with related matrimonial matters pending in the same court, considering the convenience of the parties.

What did the court decide?

CC No.2407 of 2018 is transferred from Cyberabad Court to I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam to be tried along with CC No.330 of 2018.

Smt. K. Sridevi Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2407 of 2018 on the file of the III-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, seeking transfer of the said C.C.No.2407 of 2018 to the Court of the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, where C.C.No.330 of 2018 filed by the 1^st petitioner against the 2^nd respondent herein is pending.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State and learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant.

¶6

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the marriage of the 1^st petitioner with the 2^nd respondent/ complainant was solemnised on 12.11.2016 at Pedakakani Village of Guntur District. At the time of marriage, the 2^nd petitioner, who is the mother of the 1^st petitioner, gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/towards dowry apart from 8 tulas of gold ornaments. After the marriage, the 1^st petitioner joined with the company of the 2^nd respondent/complainant at Hyderabad and led marital life for one month, thereafter, the 2^nd respondent/complainant started harassing the 1^st petitioner both mentally and physically for want of additional

¶7

¶8

dowry and the 2^nd respondent/complainant necked out the 1^st petitioner from his house. As such, on 09.11.2017, the 1^st petitioner made a complaint before the Women Police Station, Khammam, against the 2^nd respondent/complainant. As the 2^nd petitioner is aged about 65 years and suffering with old age ailments, she could not able to maintain the 1^st petitioner, the 1^st petitioner filed M.C.No.42 of 2018 before the Judge, Family Court, Khammam, seeking maintenance. Along with the M.C., the 1^st petitioner also filed Crl.M.P.No.199 of 2018, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. During the pendency of Section 498-A I.P.C. case vide C.C.No.330 of 2018 and Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.42 of 2018, the 2^nd respondent/complainant filed a private complaint with false and frivolous allegations, which was referred to the police and the police registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2018 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 448, 379, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.2407 of 2018. It is also stated that the petitioners do not have any male support and, therefore, it is difficult for them to travel from Khammam to Hyderabad to appear in the above C.C. on each and every date of adjournment. It is further stated that the 2^nd respondent/complainant is appearing before the Court at Khammam in C.C.No.330 of 2018 and M.C.No.42 of 2018 and if the C.C.No.2407 of 2018 filed by the 2^nd respondent/complainant is

¶9

¶10

transferred to Khammam Court, no prejudice would be caused to the 2^nd respondent/complainant.

¶11

Learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/ complainant would submit that inconvenience of the accused to travel a long distance is not a valid ground to transfer the proceedings, as such the Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others¹ .

¶12

A perusal of the record would reveal that the 1^st petitioner/wife filed C.C.No.330 of 2018 against the 2^nd respondent/husband and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and also M.C.No.42 of 2018 against the 2^nd respondent seeking maintenance from him, which are pending before the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge Court and Family Court respectively at Khammam. After filing of the above cases, the 2^nd respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners and the same is pending before the III-Additional Junior Civil Judgecum-XI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, vide C.C.No. 2407 of 2018. It is stated in the affidavit that the 2^nd petitioner is aged about 65 years and the petitioners have no male support and, therefore, it is difficult for them to travel from Khammam to Hyderabad on every date of adjournment in

¶13

1 (2012) 4 SCC 217

¶14

¶15

C.C.No.2407 of 2018 and the 2^nd respondent/complainant has been attending before the Courts at Khammam in C.C.No.330 of 2018 and M.C.No.42 of 2018.

¶16

Taking into consideration the convenience of the parties, I feel that it is expedient to transfer C.C.No.2407 of 2018 from the file of the III-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, to the Court of the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, to be tried along with C.C.No.330 of 2018.

¶17

Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed and C.C.No.2407 of 2018 is withdrawn from the file of the III-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad and transfer to the Court of the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, to be tried along with C.C.No.330 of 2018.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶19

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶20

20.02.2020 gkv/Gsn

¶21

Smt. K. Sridevi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Sridevi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Ramakrishna , Bonthalakoti Rama Krishna Vs State of Telangana and another

Mrs.Kanukula Animaka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

T. Saraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Asra Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Asra Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Siraj Ur Rahman Vs The State of Telangana