THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Transfer Criminal Petition No.99of 2008 4th March, 2010 Between :- S.V.Subba Rao .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Transfer Criminal Petition No.99of 2008 ORDER:- This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed to transfer C.C.No.1016/2005 on the file of the Court of III-Metropolita Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to the Court of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Sections 190 and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also his case that due to acquaintance with him, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 1-7-2002 to meet his urgent needs. While receiving the amount, the petitioner executed a demand promissory note dt.1-7-2002 promising to pay the amount within short time with interest at 36% per annum. Thereafter, the petitioner committed default in payment of the said amount. Further alleged that on insisting by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.644130, dt.13-9-2003 for Rs.5,80,000/- drawn on SBH, Palvoncha Branch, Khammam District in favour of the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent presented the said cheque with his Bank, the same was dishonoured with reasons “Funds Insufficinet” under a cheque return memo dt.4-11-2003. It is also further stated that when it was informed to the petitioner, he had not taken any steps to liquidate his liability, thereupon the 1st respondent got issued legal notice dt.19-11-2003 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,80,000/-. However, the said notice was returned. However, it is alleged that the notice sent under UCP is received by the petitioner. However, the petitioner had not paid any amount nor issued any reply. Therefore, he filed the complaint in C.C.No.1016/2005 before the III-Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. After filing the said case, the petitioner was examined under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in the said examination the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded that he was not guilty and the matter is posted for trial. In fact, the matter is posted to 20-6-2008 for trial. Further it is stated that similarly the 1st respondent herein filed two complaints in C.C.No.2031/2003 and C.C.No.2032/2003 against the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, on the file of the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court,Nampally, Hyderabad. It is also his case in the above two cases that the petitioner allegedly to have agreed to pay him a sum of Rs.17,36,000/- and Rs.17,36,000/- respectively in pursuance of an alleged agreement dt.24-10-2002. However, the petitioner had not paid the amount inspite of his persistent demands. He also alleged that on repeated demands, the petitioner had alleged to have issued cheques bearing No.644128 and 644128 dt.24-8-2003 and 24-9-2003 drawn on SBH, Paloncha Branch, Khammam District in his favour. He also alleged that when the said cheques were presented for realization and the same were dishonoured for the reasons “Insufficient Funds”. After issuance of the legal notices, the above said two complaints were filed against the petitioner and the said cases are pending for trial. Further it is also stated that the parties are one and the same in all the three complaints and the witnesses to be examined are also the same in all the three complaints. Further it is convenient for the parties if all the three cases are tried in one Court than in different Courts. It is also further stated that the transfer of the above said three cases is expedient in the interest of justice since if all the three cases are tried in one Court, the duplication of proceedings can be avoided and conflicting Judgments also can be avoided. 3. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the transfer to be ordered and accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 4th March, 2010 smr