Allowed

Manchireddy Prashanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021TRCRLP/14/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer Criminal Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. sought consolidation of C.C. No.441 of 2017 and C.C. No.266 of 2010. The Court allowed the transfer to ensure a joint trial and avoid conflicting judgments in suits arising from the same land dispute.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of C.C. No. 441 of 2017 to VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad along with C.C. No. 266 of 2010.

Manchireddy Prashanth Reddy Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'14 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Manchireddy Prashanth Reddy, S/o. M. Kishan Reddy, aged about 36^years, Occ. Business, FVo. H. No. 16-2-7511119, Tirumala Hills, Asmanghad, Hyderabad.

¶8

.,.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana , rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶11

N. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. N. Krishna Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Plot No.32, Brundavan Colony, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 407(1)CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw C.C. No. 44112017 on the file of XXIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad and transfer the same to Vll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar to try along with C.C. No. 26612010 by leading common evidence in all the cases by exercising power U/Sec. 407 (1) of Cr.P.C.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶15

Petition under Section a07(6) of Cr PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 441120i7 on the file of XXIV Special Itrlagistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of main Transfer petition

¶16

I.A. N O:1 OF 2021

¶17

Between:

¶18

N. PrabhakarReddy, S/o. N. Krishna Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Plot No.32, Brundavan Colony, Chami:apet, Ranga Retldy District

¶19

...PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

And

¶21

lVanchireddy Prashanth Reddy, S/o. I/. Kishan Reddy, aged about 36 vears. Occ. Business, Rt/o. H. No. 16-2-7sil119, Tirumata nilis,"nsmi-non;i.'--^-' Hyderabad. ...RESpoNDENTpetltioNiR^--'

¶22

2 The State of relangana , rep. by its public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana HyderaEad.

¶23

....RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

Petition un( er Section 482 of Cr PC praying that in the cir"cumstances stated in the affidavit file in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to vacate the interim r rder passed in lA.No. 1 of 2020 in Tr.Crl.P.No.^'14 of 2020 dated 1110212021 .

¶25

This Petitior coming on for hearing,upon perusing th€ Memorandum of Grounds of Crimini I Petition and upon hearing the argumenls 0f Sri M DAMODAR REDDY ,Advocate rr the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nc 1. and of Sri VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate frr the Respondent No.2

¶26

Counsel for the Pel tioner :SRl. M DAMODAR REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Rer^pondent NO1. : Assistant PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶28

Counsel for the Re:^pondent NO.2: Sri VEDULA SRINIVAS,

¶29

The Court made th€ following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI} TRANSFER C MINAL PETITION^{No.14 of2O2O}

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

This transfer criminal^petition is^{filed under Section 4O7of} the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^{(for short "Cr'P.C") seeking} to withdraw C.C.No.441 of 2Ol7 on^{the file of XXIVSpecial} Magistrate, Hyderabad and transfer the same^to VII^Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar to try along^with C.C.No.266 of 2010.

¶33

The brief facts stated ln the petition are the 2"d respondent and one B.Krishna Reddy by claiming to be the owners of Ac.2.O7 gunta of land in Sy.No.340/AA at Ragannaguda village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District offered to sell the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/ - and the^petitioners and 2 others purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 31.O7.2008 and they paid Rs.30,00,000/- by cash and for payment ol balance sale consideration, they issued post dated cheques in favour of 2nd respondent and another. Thereafter^the petitioners and 2 others came to know that 2nd respondent and another persori are not the owners of the^{said land and by playing} fraud, they executed the above said deed. In view of^{fraud played} by 2nd respondent, the^petitioners and 2 others^{issued noticesto} their respective bankers not to accept the cheques for^payment of amount and also filed criminal case against the 2"d respondent and another for the offence under Section 406, 417, 42O and 423 of IPC, which is numbered as C.C.No.266 of 2010 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar.

¶34

¶35

It is rtated^{that 2"d respondentand anothertaking} advantage o^{holding cheques for payment ofbalance sale} consideration^{filed three complaints againstthe petrtioners and 2} others,^one ir^{C C.No.441 of 2017 is against the peLtioner herein'} oneB.Deven,larGoud,hiswifeB.Manjulaandanotherpurchaser filed Tr.Crl.P. 'los.^{148 and 166 of 2011 seekingtransfer of cheque} dishonour^{ca;es liled by 2'd respondentand anotherto be tried} along with^{C. 1.No.266 of 2010, which were allowedby this Court'} It is further^{statedthat presentcaseC'C'No441 of 2017 filed} against the^{p:titioner herein aiso stands on the same looting' as} such it has^{t I be tried along with C'C No'266of 20 10' otherwise} the petitioner^{will sufferhardship'}

¶36

Heard Sri^{M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the} petitioner, tL:^{learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor for the 1"t} respondent-S^{ate and Sri VedulaSrinivas' learned counsel for the} 2"d responder^t.

¶37

Learne<^{counsel for the petitioner submitsthat tllreecases} filed by the^{2 d respondent and another against the co-purchasers} of the^{petitio1er, were already transferredto the Vll Additional} Chief Metrop^{rlitan Magistrate,Cyberabadat Hayatnagar to be} tried along^{wj -h C.C.No2 66 of 2O1O' He submits that the present} C.C.No.441^{ci2Ol7 filed against the petitioner also standson} similar^footin l^{with the said threecases'as such there is need to} conduct^{joint trial in ali the cases' in order to have a fair trial and} to avoid^{conf ,cting of judgments' He submitsthat dispute in a1l} the above^cas -'s^{is one and the same revolves aroun<l one and the} same^{propertr.He furthersubmits that Crl'P No'7109 of 2011}

¶38

¶39

¶40

filed by the 2nd respondent and another to quash the^proceedings in C.C.No.266 of 2010 was dismissed by this Court on 11.09.2015, as such unless and until a^joint trial is conducted in all the cases, the truth will not come to light.

¶41

Learned counsel for 2"d respondent submits that in C.C.No.441 of 2Ol7 already chief examination affidavit of 2,,d respondent was filed, as such it is not appropriate to transfer the said case. He submits that the petitioner did not seek transfer of another case filed by 2"4 respondent against the petitioner in C.C.No.162 of 2OI4 arising out of the same transaction and he proceeded with trial, as such there is no necessit5r to transfer C.C.No.441 of 2077 .

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of entire material on record, admittedly, C.C.No.441 of 2017 is arising out of same dispute relating pending in C.C.No.266 of 2010 and three other cases and the disputed property is also one and the same. Hence, if the said cases are tried by different Courts, there is every likelihood of conflicting of^judgments. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the 2"d respondent or any other party, since the three other similar cases^{were already} transferred to the same Court for conducting trial^{along with} C.C.No.266 of 2010. Hence, in the interest of^justice, this^Court deems it appropriate to transfer C.C.No.441 ol 2017 to the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar to try along with c.c.No.266 0f 2010.

¶43

¶44

7 . Accordi^{rgly, the transfercriminal petition is allowed and} C.C.No.441tf2o|TonthefrleofXXIVSpecialIr{agistrate, Hyderabad ir^{withdrawnand transferredto VII Metropolitan} Magistrate,^{)yberabadatHayathnagar to tryalong with} C.C.No.266 o^{2010. No costs'}

¶45

As a sr^{quel, pending miscellaneouspetitions' if any' shall}

¶46

stand closed.

¶47

qN/.K.AMMAJI ASSIST/\Ni-REGISTRAR lL, //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

¶49

ii[i[Ui[:ilil$i[f$#Lt"'**eLtJft1xl^'l'"'$'ieorreansana

¶50

i :[tin+^{i [t ffi sel-ffi1"^i,*":?:i5"J..r:'}

¶51

Two^{CD CoPtt s}

¶52

One^{SPareCt PY}

CDL TR?s

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 411212021

ORDER

TRCRLP.No.1,l of²⁰²⁰

Z-iG=.ffi..}<br>'t
/lc
//k'
llc
03 i,,11_2
lll

¶59

ALLOWING THE^{TR.C lL.P}

¶60

(1),,.,i,./'-<br>>q$ N)-

Manchireddy Prashanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manchireddy Prashanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana And Another

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

P.Vidyamani Vs Penumala Gnani Solomon

P.Ranganath Vs P.Prasanna

V. Ramanuja Chary Vs Mr. Ravi Kanth Durgam

Amit Sanghi Vs The State of Telangana

Chendati Rama Krishna Vs State of Telengana

Revanth Poreddy Vs M/s. Prasad Irrigation Engineering Consultants and 4 Others