Dismissed

P.Vidyamani v. Penumala Gnani Solomon

Telangana HC13 Dec 2021TRCRLP/34/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Transfer Criminal Petition seeking to withdraw a Domestic Violence case from the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur to the City Civil Court at Hyderabad was dismissed, as the petitioner's residence was near Medchal, making the existing court nearer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of DVC No. 36 of 2017 and stay of O.P. No. 922 of 2018 were denied; Transfer Cr.P. 34 of 2019 dismissed.

P.Vidyamani Vs Penumala Gnani Solomon — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 34 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

PVidyamani, W/o P.Gnani Solomon, aged 29 years, r/o IVIG-100, Bharath Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Penumala Gnani Solomon, S/o Gnanaiah, aged about 33 years,r/o H.No. 1-91291 61 1 lH, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

Z ?€leLgjgh, S/o not known to the petitioner, aged about 60 years,r/o H.No. 1-g1291 61 1 lH, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt.P.Shulamiti, W/o P.Gnanaiah, aged about 55 years,r/o H.No. 1-9-12916/1/H, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

Chinnam Emmanuel Raju, S/o not known to the petitioner, r/o Hat No. 2.17, Gangotri Apartments Huda Complex, Kothapet, Saroornagar. Hyderabad.

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under section 407 of cr.p.c praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to withdraw D.v.c.No.36 of 2017 now pending on the file of the xxlv Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur, to the city civil court at Hyderabad, having competent jurisdiction to try the same,

¶17

l.A, NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under section 407(6) of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of arr further proceedings in o.p.No.922 of zolg pending on the fire of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Transfer Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. S. V. INDIRA (Not present)

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI p. RAJENDER REDDy

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: public prosecutor (TG)

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

4-:=L

t I

)

THE HOI'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICELALITHAKANNEGANTI} Tr.Cr^{I.P. No,34 of 2019}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This trar^{sfer criminal Petitionis filed to withdraw D V C No 36} ol 2017^{on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrateat Miyapur' and} transfer^{the sa ne to the City Civil Court at Hyderabad' or any other} Court^{havingjt risdiction to try the same'}

¶30

None^{ap cears for the petitioner' Heard Sri P Rajendra Reddy'} learned^{couns)l for respondent Nos l to 4'} 3. ln suppr^{rt of the present petition' it is stated that the petitioner} frled D.V.C.Nc^{36 of 2017 on the file of XXIV MetropolitanlVlagistrate} at Miyapur,^{( yberabad' seekingprotectionresidence'monetary} relief^{and con pensation As a counterbiastto the said DVC the 1"t} respondent^{fil rd O P No g 22 at 2A18 on the file of the JudgeFamily} Court,^{City Ci 'il Court'Hyderabadseeking div;rce with all falseand} frivolous^{allegations lt is statedthat as all the issues arising out of} the matrimoni^{:l disputes and as she is facing much inconvenience to} pursue^{both^hecases as DVC.' is at Miyapur and OP ' is at City} civil^{court,l- yderabad, and in order to pursue both the mattersin} proper^{persp:ctive'DVC case maybe transferred to the City Civil} Court,^{Hyder rbad} '^{and if the matter is transferredto the City Civil} Court,^{Hyder lbad' it wouldbe convenient to both the parties'}

¶31

Learnt^{d counsel appearingfor the respondents submits that} as^{the Magil trate is having jurisdiction to dealwith DVC matters' the} present^{DV') case cannot be transferredto the City Civil Coud'}

¶32

'lr Crl P No.34 ol?o19)

¶33

He submits^{that the transfercriminal petitionmaybe} Hyderabad

¶34

d ismissed.

¶35

A perusal of^{the cause title, it appears that the petitioner} a 's resident of Moosapet,^{Hyderabad.and the Courts at lVledchalare} nearertoherplaceofresidenceHence,thisCourtfindsnoreasons

¶36

to transfer the^{caseto City Civil Court, Hyderabad}

¶37

6 Accordingly,^{the Transfer Criminal Petrtion is dismissed'} 7 Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending in this petition'shall}

¶38

stand dismissed '

¶39

AsssrAN?D{5G?JrEfiH^{</sup> I/TRUE^COPYI/ h //,,' SECTION^OFFICER}

¶40

¶41

l"'''nnun'u'

¶42

1. J. iH5"t!{irdiiF#ltril:aiifitUl#i"lfif€ljf 4. 5 E'ffi"td^{ft' $iii ly'" ls# -H;ii itf, [o"! l"!t e u cr} tl Two^{CD CoPies} 7 One^{SPare CoPY} CDL gbr

¶43

HIGH COURT

¶44

DATED: 1311212021

¶45

'
:rt.fi;?-,',
$
: f\r,
t 1
,/;/
:i--_r.: It:..i :?'
-..-.).---.:/_"

¶46

ORDER

¶47

TR.CRL.P.No.3, t of 201 9

¶48

DISMISSING^{TI IE TR.CRL.P}

P.Vidyamani v. Penumala Gnani Solomon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vidyamani v. Penumala Gnani Solomon

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

M/s Aditya Enterprises Project Vartak Nagar Vs Smt. Chileveru Prameela Reddy

Chittari Mallesham Vs The state of Telangana and another

Miss Aliya Vs The State of Telangana

P.Ranganath Vs P.Prasanna

V. Ramanuja Chary Vs Mr. Ravi Kanth Durgam

Sri Bommaraju Krishna Vs The State of Telangana