Kakkirala Srihari Vs Rampalli Srinivas

Kakkirala Srihari, S/0. Purushotham, Aged about^{42 years, Occ.Business} (Krana Shop and Water Business), R/o.H. No.8-3-430/74, Yellareddyguda. Ambedkar Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶10

..Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Rampalli Srinivas, S/o.Rampalli Shankarayya, Aged^{about 56 years, Occ.} Business, FJo. H. No.8-3-430/32, Ambedkar Colony,^{Yellareddyguda,} Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

2- The State of Telangana, Represented by^Public Prosecutor,^HighCourt Buildings, Hyderabad

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stateil in the Memorandum of^grounds of Transfer^{Criminal Petition, the High} Court may be^pleased to direct STC.NI^{No.11912023on the file of JudicialFirst} Class (Special Mobile) Magistrate at Medak and^to transfer^{the same to the Xll} Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Manoranjan Complex,^{where STC Nl No.} 1172 ol 2023 is pending.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 482 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 stay all further proceedings in STC.Nl.No.119/2023 on the file of^First Class (Special Mobile) Magistrate at Medak also STC.Nl.No.1172^{ol 2023on the} file of Xll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,^{ManoranjanComplex,pending} disposal of the above Tr.Crl.P.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶19

Between:

¶20

Rampalri Srinivas, Sro.Rampalli Shankarayya, Aged abou. 56 years, Occ Business. R/o H. No 8-3-43d132, Rmbedt<aibotoiv,^yelta i ddyguda, Ameerpet. Hyderabad. Telangana State.

¶21

... Petil i )ner/Respondent

¶22

AND

¶23

Kakkirala Srihari, S/0. Purushotham, Aged about 42 yt lrs, Occ. Business (Krana Shop and Water Business), R/o.!.No.8-3-430'; 4, yellareddyguda. Ambedkar Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana St;rl :.

¶24

2 The State of Telangana, Represented by Public proseculc^.. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶25

...Respondent

¶26

Petitron under Section^'i51 CPC praying that in the circ I nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court tay be pleased to vacate the interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 ln Tr. Crlp.N:69 of 2024 dated 06.08.2024 in the tnterest of the justice and pass such other c^-der or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶27

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶28

Petition under Section 15'1 CpC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl nay be pleased to withdrew STC.NI No.1 172 of 2023 before the Xll Metr(,l olitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Manoranjan complex and to transfer the same 1 ) the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Medak, where STC.Nl.No.119 of 2021, is pending in the interest of the justice.

¶29

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing ti t Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GOpINADH BALASA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri D.Arun Kum a , Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Gc:uri Venkatesham, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GOPINADH BALASA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D.ARUN KUMAR, ADI) TIONAL

¶31

PROSECUTOR

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt VENKATESHAM GOTt, Rt

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶35

AT HYDERABAD

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶37

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.69 of 2024 -

DATE:18.12.2o25 -

BETtrI'EEN:

Kakkirala Srihari z

.....petitioner

Rampalli Srinivas and another

¶43

. Respondents / complainants

¶44

ORDER

¶45

This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner to transfer STC.NI.No. 119 of 2023 on the hle of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Medak to the hle of the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

¶46

\ -'=''-

¶47

7

¶48

sKs,J cr .. '.1Yo.69 of 2024

¶49

! i l I I a. I I

¶50

Heard Sri Gopinadh Balasa, leant :d counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well : s Sri Goturi Venkatesham, Iearned counsel appearing o r behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learr: < d Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the I espondent - State.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner sut mitted that respondent No. 1 filed multiple complaints urr ler Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before different Courts in Hyderabad and Medak Dis;r rict with an intention to harass the petitioner. He furthe r submitted that the parties and the subject matter in all th ) cases were the same and that the petitioner, being a busirL, ssman, was facing serious hardship in attending pro( :edings on different dates at different places, often resultin5 in issuance of warrants. In support of his submission, h,: relied upon the amended provision to Section 142 of the N.. Act, stating that when more than one prosecution b y the same complainant against the same drawer was p( I ding before different courts, all such cases were liable to tr transferred to the Court where the first case was filed and v as pending.

¶52

sRs,J Crl.P.No,69 of 2O24

¶53

Therefore, he prayed the Court to transfer STC NI No. 119 of 2023 to the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the transfer criminal petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner had not approached the Court wi[h clean hands. He further submitted that the complaints were filed strictly in accordance rvith^{jurisdiction,} cause of action, and the place where the respective cheques were presented and dishonoured and that the cheques involved in the two cases were deposited in different banks situated in Medak District and Hyderabad respectively, conferring separate territorial jurisdiction on the concerned courts. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Transfer Criminal Petitiorr.

¶55

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel appearing and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it was the principal contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 1, being the same complainant, had instituted multiple prosecutions under

¶56

4

¶57

sKs,J cl I P.No.69 of 2024

¶58

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before different Courts in Hyderabad and Medak Dist -icts, though the parties and the nature of transactions vr :re common, thereby subjecting the petitioner to unnecess€ ry^hardship. The petitioner sought transfer of STC No. 119 ,t '2023 to the Court where STC NI No.ll72 of 2O23 was pending, by placing reliance on the amended provisions of ii :ction 142(21 of the N.l. Act- However, the learned counsel f: : respondent No.1 contended that the complaints were filr d strictly in accordance with territorial jurisdiction, as tL.( cheques in question were presented and dishonoured in di lerent banks situated at different places, conferring jurisci :tion on the respective Courts. It was further contend: I that each complaint arose out of a distinct cheque tre r saction and that the amendment to Section 142 of the N.t Act did not automatically mandate transfer of all cases to rr single Court at the instance of the accused.

¶59

On a conjoint reading of Section 142{2) ct the N.l. Act and the proviso thereto, it is evident that jL risdiction is determined with reference to the place where t re cheque is presented for collection through the account < f the payee.

¶60

.\

¶61

5

¶62

sKs,., Crl.P.No.69 of2O24

¶63

In the present case, the record discloses that one set of cheques was presented in a bank at Medak District, while the other cheques \rrere presented in a bank at Hyderabad, thereby conferring^junsdiction on two different Courts. Merely because the complainant is the same in both cases, the accused cannot seek consolidation or transfer as a matter of right.

¶64

7 . Further, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Naliai Jayanti v. M. Ramasubba Reddyl, transfer criminal petitions seeking transfer of cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at the instance of the accused, solely on the^ground of inconvenience or alleged harassment, are not maintainable when the complaints are otherwise filed before Courts having proper territorial^{jurisdiction.}

¶65

In view of the above legal position and considering that the complaints were instih.:ted in accordance^with Section la2pl of the N.I.^Act, this Court^{hnds no merit in} the contention of the^petitioner seeking transfer of^STC No. 119 of 2023 and the same is^{liableto be dismissed.}

¶66

I 2022 sCC Online SC 2451

t''-

.,]

6

sKs,J Crl. '.No.69 of 2024

¶71

Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal petition is

¶72

dismissed.

¶73

Miscellaneous applications, if any pe r ding, shall

¶74

stand closed

¶75

To,

¶76

S '- L LAKSHMI BABU REGISTRAR l \ //TRUE COPY// 'l ON OFFICER \ \

¶77

The Xll Metropolitan Magistrate (Spl. Mobile) at Hyderab rd. 2. The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally, Hy: )rabad. 3. The Station House Officer, S.R.Nagar Police Station,^Hy lerabad.

¶78