Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 895 (AP)

Katari Padmasri, W/o Venkateswara Rao v. Ananthu Naga Murali Krishna, S/o Chinna Kotaiah

2022-09-14

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2022
ORDER : All these Transfer Criminal Petitions, under Section 407 CrPC, are filed seeking to withdraw C.C.Nos.34 of 2017, 88 of 2016, 36 of 2015, 69 of 2016, 33 of 2017 and 37 of 2015 respectively on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, and transfer the same to any other competent court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Guntur. 2. Since the petitioner is all these petitions is one and the same, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard Ms. T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant. 4. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of all these transfer criminal petitions, are as follows: (a) 1st respondent in all these petitions filed private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.Nos.34 of 2017, 88 of 2016, 36 of 2015, 69 of 2016, 33 of 2017 and 37 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District. (b) It is the case of the petitioner that she never issued any cheques and that one Kalumuri Padma was running several unregistered chits worth of Rs.1 lakh, 2 lakhs, 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs. As the petitioner got acquaintance with the said Kalumuri Padma since 15 years, she approached the petitioner and requested to get subscribers for joining her chits and as per her request, the petitioner got joined several persons as chit members. The petitioner used to collect the monthly instalments from the chit members and pay the same to Kalumuri Padma from time to time. Some of the chit members committed default to a tune of Rs.13,88,700/-. The said Kalumuri Padma started threatening the petitioner to pay the amounts for the default committed by the chit members and obtained her signatures on five blank pronotes and five blank cheques by force. Unbearable with the torture, the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- to Kalumuri Padma on 27.04.2014 at Chirala, towards full and final settlement of chit amount and she agreed for the same. When the petitioner requested her to return the blank pronotes and cheques, she postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Unbearable with the torture, the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- to Kalumuri Padma on 27.04.2014 at Chirala, towards full and final settlement of chit amount and she agreed for the same. When the petitioner requested her to return the blank pronotes and cheques, she postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, District Collector, Ongole, S.H.O., Addanki Police Station, Tahasildar, Addanki, to take necessary action against the said Kaulumuri Padma for doing unregistered chit business. Having come to know of the same, Kalumuri Padma, with the help of her henchmen got filed these cases, after exchange of notices, through (i) Kalumuri Padma, (ii) Kalumuri Uma Guru Kumar, (iii) Anantha Naga Murali Krishna, (iv) Chandra Guru Murthy, (v) Sanam Gangadhar who are no other than her relatives. (c) The petitioner has been attending the Court in those cases. The complainants in these cases and their henchmen are demanding to settle the amounts threatening the petitioner with dire consequences if she failed to pay the amount. The husband of the petitioner is working in the Police Department at Guntur and her children have left Ongole for studies. The petitioner is staying alone at Addanki to attend the Court proceedings. (d) While the things stood thus, on 30.03.2022, while the petitioner was standing in court premises after attending the case in C.C.No.33 of 2017, the complainants and their henchmen threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. In this regard, she complained to the police in Crime No.124 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 506, 509 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner has immense threat to her life in case she attends the Court proceedings at Addanki. Hence, all these petitions are filed. 5. The main ground for seeking transfer of the cases is the alleged threat and attack by the henchmen of Kalumuri Padma when the petitioner attends before the court. To support the ground taken for transfer of the cases, the petitioner relied on the complaint given by her to the police, which is registered as Crime No.124 of 2022. 6. On the other hand, the 1st respondent resisted the petitions on the ground that the police have filed a final report, dated 13.07.2022, reporting the Court that the case in Crime No.124 of 2022 as ‘false’ and submitted its copy. 6. On the other hand, the 1st respondent resisted the petitions on the ground that the police have filed a final report, dated 13.07.2022, reporting the Court that the case in Crime No.124 of 2022 as ‘false’ and submitted its copy. He further submitted that in spite of the husband of the complainant is a Police Constable and thus, there is no prejudicial approach of the police in filing the said final report as false case. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police used the word ‘accost’ which means threat, and therefore, when there is threat as contended by the petitioner, final report itself is false and the petitioner would take appropriate steps to challenge the final report. 8. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that transfer of the case was declined even when there was some proof of attack and relied on the decision in Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 217, wherein at paragraph Nos.47 & 48, it was held as follows : “47. In so far as the second contention advanced at the hands of the counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, transfer has been sought on the issue of threatened personal security. The Petitioners believed that their personal security is at risk on account of a vicious attack with a cleaver's knife on Dr. Rajesh Talwar, which resulted in his having suffered grievous injuries not only on his face but on both his hands as well. The injuries are stated to have rendered Dr. Rajesh Talwar handicapped for more than two months. The aforesaid incident has allegedly had the effect of making both the Petitioners scared to attend any court-proceedings at the Ghaziabad court-complex. The case set up by the Petitioners is, that the incident in question has completely shaken the confidence of the Petitioners, and that, it is unsafe for the Petitioners to appear before the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P. to defend themselves. 48. Whilst we are of the view that all preventive measures should have been in place to avoid any assault of the nature which Dr. Rajesh Talwar encountered on 25.1.2011, we appreciate the impossibility of the aforesaid task specially when the attacker is a person suffering from a mental disability. 48. Whilst we are of the view that all preventive measures should have been in place to avoid any assault of the nature which Dr. Rajesh Talwar encountered on 25.1.2011, we appreciate the impossibility of the aforesaid task specially when the attacker is a person suffering from a mental disability. Such an attack cannot be deemed to have been aimed at disabling the Petitioners to defend themselves. The physical assault suffered by the Petitioner was clearly unrelated to their court-proceedings.” (b) He further argued that inconvenience of the party is not a ground for transfer of the case and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Sabu v. Sabu Trade Private Limited, 2021 SCC Online SC 378, wherein at paragraph No.10, it was held as follows : “10. The Petitioner's plea for transfer is based primarily on convenience. But convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for allowing his application. Transfer of a criminal case Under Section 406 of the 1973 Code can be directed when such transfer would be "expedient for the ends of justice". This expression entails factors beyond mere convenience of the parties or one of them in conducting a case before a Court having jurisdiction to hear the case. The parties are related, and are essentially fighting commercial litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions. While instituting civil suits, both the parties had chosen fora, some of which were away from their primary places of business, or the main places of business of the Defendants. The ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Mrudul M. Damle (supra) cannot apply in the factual context of this case. In that case, a proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi was directed to be transferred to the Special Judge, CBI cases, Court of Session, Thane. Out of 92 witnesses enlisted in the charge sheet, 88 were from different parts of Maharashtra. That was a case which this Court found was not "Delhi-centric". The Accused persons were based in western part of this Country. It was because of these reasons, the case was directed to be transferred. The circumstances surrounding the case pending in the Salem Court are entirely different. In the case of Rajesh Talwar v. CBI [ (2012) 4 SCC 217 ] it was held: 46. The Accused persons were based in western part of this Country. It was because of these reasons, the case was directed to be transferred. The circumstances surrounding the case pending in the Salem Court are entirely different. In the case of Rajesh Talwar v. CBI [ (2012) 4 SCC 217 ] it was held: 46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Often either the complainant or the Accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an Accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea, therefore, deserves outright rejection.” 9. It is the main contention of the petitioner that several false cases were got filed by different persons at the instance of Kalumuri Padma who is the complainant in C.C.No.37 of 2015 and she has been harassing the petitioner and that all other complainants are acting at her behest and behind. It is further contended that the henchmen of K. Padma are threatening the petitioner whenever she attended the Court and the same has been reported to the concerned Magistrate also and as such, if the matter is transferred to another Court, the influence of the person behind the litigation would be eliminated. 10. It is further contended that the henchmen of K. Padma are threatening the petitioner whenever she attended the Court and the same has been reported to the concerned Magistrate also and as such, if the matter is transferred to another Court, the influence of the person behind the litigation would be eliminated. 10. It is pertinent to refer to the contents of the final report relevant for the purpose of this petition, which reads as follows: “Basing on the report of the complainant, case was registered and examined as many as 6 witnesses and among them the LW1 stated that the incident occurred in the premises of court building, Addanki as the accused abused in filthy language in an insulting manner of her modesty and with dire consequences that they will kill due NI Act are pending in between the complainant and alleged accused, and which are under trial before the Hon’ble Court. According to the LWs 2 to 6 stated that alleged accused and LW.1 accost each other and went away without any altercation. Except that no further occurrence was occurred in the premises of court building between LW1 and the alleged accused. After that the complainant gave false report against alleged accused while exaggerated the facts in this case.” 11. It is not proper occasion for this Court to deal with the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the final report and its tenability. As of now, the complaint of the petitioner is found to be false and it was found that just there was some wordly altercation. When the parties are at loggerheads, they may exchange harsh words. It may not have bearing on the location of the Court. Just because, trial in the present case is transferred from one Court in one district to another court in any other district, or in the same district, it cannot be a solution for the problem of the complainant, if at all, there is any problem since the cause is enemity. There is no proof that K. Padma has support of local rude people there as alleged. After the said incident, there appears no recurrence of any such an incident till now. If cases are transferred, the complainants also will be put to difficulty or hardship to travel for long distances. 12. There is no proof that K. Padma has support of local rude people there as alleged. After the said incident, there appears no recurrence of any such an incident till now. If cases are transferred, the complainants also will be put to difficulty or hardship to travel for long distances. 12. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no need to transfer the cases. 13. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.