Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 485 (AP)

A. Nazarali v. State Of A. P.

2000-07-13

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY

body2000
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-defacto complainant. ( 2 ) THIS is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 407 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) to withdraw C. C. No. 202 of 1999 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, city Criminal Courts, Hyderabad and transfer the same to the file of learned I additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal to be tried along with C. C. No. 499 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Munsif magistrate, Warangal. ( 3 ) THE first petitioner herein is a partner of a firm called M/s. M. Y. Nathoo and Sons, which is having its offence at Warangal. It is stated that the firm is engaged in business of oil and oilseeds. The third petitioner herein is looking after the affairs of the firm at hyderabad and the second petitioner herein is brother-in-law of the first petitioner. ( 4 ) THE first petitioner s firm filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code vide C. C. No, 499 of 1996 on the file of the learned I additional Munsif Magistrate, warangal against the second respondent herein (impleaded as per the orders of the court dated 22-6-2000) for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act read with Sections 417 and 420 of the indian Penal Code on the ground that the cheques issued by him on 5-12-1995 and 8-12-1995 for Rs. 60,799/- and Rs. 60,539/- respectively drawn on Charminar Cooperative urban Bank Limited, Toli Chowki branch, Hyderabad in favour of the firm were returned unhonoured for want of sufficientfunds. Legalnotices were issued to the second respondent herein demanding the payment of money. Since the amounts were not paid, the complaint was lodged. ( 5 ) IT is stated that the first petitioner herein is examined in-chief in the said proceedings and at the request of the second respondent herein, cross-examination was deferred to be taken on 11-3-1997. Thereafter, the second respondent continuously abstained himself and ultimately non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 17-6-1997. The matter underwent several adjournments. ( 5 ) IT is stated that the first petitioner herein is examined in-chief in the said proceedings and at the request of the second respondent herein, cross-examination was deferred to be taken on 11-3-1997. Thereafter, the second respondent continuously abstained himself and ultimately non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 17-6-1997. The matter underwent several adjournments. ( 6 ) THE second respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned XV metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal courts, Hyderabad stating that he has issued various cheques including the cheques dated 5-12-1995 and 8-12-1995 in favour of the first petitioner s firm, that is to say, M/s. M. Y. Nathoo and Sons and that he has paid the amount due under the above two cheques and he has asked the firm to return all the cheques including the said two cheques, but he was being threatened by the petitioners herein to pay the cheque amounts. The Police filed the charge-sheet on 30-9-1997 and the same is taken on file by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, city Criminal Courts, Hyderabad in c. C. No. 202 of 1999. ( 7 ) THE petitioners herein filed the present application for transfer of C. C. No. 202 of 1999 pending on the file of the learned xv Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal courts, Hyderabad to the Court of the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, warangal. ( 8 ) IT is obvious that the petitioners herein initiated the proceedings against the second respondent herein under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the cheques bearing Nos. 016688 and 016689 dated 5-12-1995 and 8-12-1995 for rs. 60,799/- and Rs. 60,539/- respectively issued by the second respondent herein were dishonoured by the bankers on the ground that there were no sufficient funds, and the second respondent herein filed a complaint stating that he paid the amounts to the petitioners firm and yet he was being subjected to threats by the petitioners herein to pay the amounts. Thus the subject matter of C. C. No. 202 of 1999 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad and C. C. No. 499 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Munsif magistrate, Warangal is one and the same. Thus the subject matter of C. C. No. 202 of 1999 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad and C. C. No. 499 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Munsif magistrate, Warangal is one and the same. It is clearly evident from the record that the petitioners herein filed C. C. No. 499 of 1996 as early as in the year 1996 before the learned i Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, whereas the second respondent herein filed the complaint somewhere in the year 1997 and charge-sheet is filed on 30-9-1997. The proceedings initiated by the second respondent herein are admittedly subsequent to that of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein on the file of the learned I Additional Munsif magistrate, Warangal. 9 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the two cheques bearing nos. 016688 dated 5-12-1995 and 016689 dated 8-12-1995 are the subject matter of dispute in both the Calendar Cases, interest of justice requires withdrawal of C. C. No. 202 of 1999 on the file of the learned xv Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal courts, Hyderabad and transfer the same to the file of learned I Additional Munsif magistrate, Warangal to be heard and tried along with C. C. No. 499 of 1996. 10. However, the learned Counsel for the second respondent Sri A. Ravishanker submits that the second respondent is being threatened by the petitioners and apprehends danger to himself and witnesses if he appears in the Court at Warangal. It shall be open to the second respondent herein, if any such threat is there, to bring it to the notice of the learned Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police, Warangal. On an enquiry, if it is found that there is any such serious threat to the second respondent, necessary protection shall be given to him on the dates of hearing of the criminal case. 11. In the circumstances, C. C. No. 202 of 1999 is withdrawn from the file of learned xv Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and transferred the same to the file of learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, warangal. 11. In the circumstances, C. C. No. 202 of 1999 is withdrawn from the file of learned xv Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and transferred the same to the file of learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, warangal. The learned XV Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to forthwith transmit the records relating to c. C. No. 202 of 1999 to the Court of learned I additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal and the learned Magistrate at Warangal is directed to receive the same and assign number to the case and proceed with the enquiry and trial along with C. C. No. 499 of 1996 already pending on his file. 12. The petition is accordingly disposed of.