THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.146 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of M.C.No.27 of 2010 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District to the Family Court at Khammam. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the respondent herein lodged a report with Women Police Station at Khammam which was registered as Cr.No.23 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to him, the police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet. The learned counsel would further contend that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.332 of 2010 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Khammam for the retirement benefits of the petitioner but the said suit was dismissed. As against the judgment and decree in the said suit, the respondent preferred CMA No.33 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge at Khammam and the same is pending. He would further contend that the children of the petitioner also filed O.S.No.134 of 2010 seeking partition of the properties and the same is also pending at Khammam. According to him three cases are pending at Khammam and that it will be just and proper if the M.C.No.27 of 2010 which is pending at Jaggaiahpet be transferred to Khammam and heard along with other cases. 3 It may be true that O.S.No.134 of 2010 filed by the children and CMA No.33 of 2010 filed by the wife are pending at Khammam. There is no material placed before the Court to show as to whether the police filed charge sheet in C.C.No.23 of 2010 and whether the Court took cognizance of the same. Even if M.C. 27 of 2010 is transferred from Jaggaiahpet to Khammam, it cannot be tagged along with the other cases pending at Khammam since these cases are pending before different Courts. Further, the presence of the petitioner is not necessary in CMA No.33 of 2010 and in O.S.No.134 of 2010 on every date of adjournment. The petitioner is not aware as to whether any charge sheet is filed on the basis of the crime registered for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 494 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Even if charge sheet is filed the presence of the petitioner is necessary only on the date of giving evidence. 4 That being the position, question of transferring the M.C. from the Court of the Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District to be tried along with the other cases at Khammam does not arise. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contends that it will be difficult for the petitioner, who is a retired employee, to travel all the way from Khammam to Jaggaiahpet to attend the proceedings in the M.C. on every date of adjournment. 6 Keeping the age of the petitioner and also the health condition of the petitioner in view, his presence in the said M.C. on every date of adjournment is dispensed with except on the dates when he is specifically required to attend the Court at Jaggaiahpet. 7 With the above direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this criminal petition, if any, shall stand closed. ------------------------------ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 15.04.2013 Kvsn