IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 155 of 2009 Mulpuri Anusha, D/o. M.Prasad, R/o. Flat No.301, Shankar Plaza Apartments, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Munaga Anantha Kishore, S/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad, R/o. Kanumolu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal,. Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MRA.SAMIR KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therwith the High Court will be pleased to to withdraw and tranfer CC.No. 164/2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, Krishna District , to City Criminal Courts, nampally, Hyderabad TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 156 of 2009 Mulpuri Anusha, D/o. M.Prasad, R/o. Flat No.301, Shankar Plaza Apartments, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Munaga Anantha Kishore, S/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad, R/o. Kanumolu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal,. Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MRA.SAMIR KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therwith the High Court will be pleased to withdraw and tranfer CC.No. 165/2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, Krishna District , to City Criminal Courts, nampally, Hyderabad THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Tr.Crl.P.Nos. 155 and 156 of 2009 Common order: As the parties to the lis and the cause raised for consideration in both the petitions is one and the same, both the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the parties are residents of Hyderabad and whenever, the petitioner is attending the court at Nuzivid, she was threatened by the second respondent and his people and once she was attempted to be kidnapped also. 4. Considering the circumstances, particularly, as both the parties are residents of Hyderabad, both the cases – C.C.No. 164 and 165 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzivid, Krishna District are withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for disposal according to law. 5. Accordingly both the petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. November 6, 2009. *BVS