ORDER : 1. These transfer criminal petitions have been filed invoking the provisions of Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) seeking transfer of S.T.C.No.31 of 2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Peddapalli and S.T.C.No.5288 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad, to the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad to be tried along with S.T.C.No.5087 of 2022. 1.1. In these two transfer criminal petitions, the parties are one and the same and the issue raised in both the cases is similar one. Hence, these two transfer criminal petitions are clubbed together and disposed of the same by a common order. 2. Facts giving rising to filing of these transfer criminal petitions briefly stated are that respondent No.3 filed complaint under Sections 190(1)(9) and 200 of Cr.P.C., in S.T.C.No.31 of 2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Peddapalli and respondent No.2 filed S.T.C.No.5288 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally and respondent No.4 filed S.T.C.No.5087 of 2022 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘NI Act’). In the above said cases, they averred that respondent No.2 is owner and possessor of open land in Sy.Nos.638 and 639 to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas and Ac.4.26 guntas, totally Ac.4.36 guntas, situated at Kanduwada village of Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was purchased through registered sale deeds vide bearing documents No.1686 dated 26.04.2003 and 1689 dated 26.04.2003. Respondent No.3 is the husband of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.4, who is none other than her brother in respect of the above said property. The petitioner had purchased the property from respondent No.4 and accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No.4 have entered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 06.02.2021 at Hyderabad. The petitioner purchased the above said property for an amount of Rs.36 lakhs per acre. The total extent of land i.e., Ac.4.36 guntas, was agreed to purchase for total sale consideration of Rs1,76,40,000/-. The petitioner had purchased the property from respondent No.4 and accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No.4 have entered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 06.02.2021 at Hyderabad. The petitioner purchased the above said property for an amount of Rs.36 lakhs per acre. The total extent of land i.e., Ac.4.36 guntas, was agreed to purchase for total sale consideration of Rs1,76,40,000/-. The petitioner requested respondent Nos.2 to 4 to register the part of the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.639 of Kanduwada village of Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for an amount of Rs.26 lakhs and accordingly, he issued Cheque No.630560 for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.2, Cheque No.630563 for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.3, Cheque Nos.630558 and 630559 dated 24.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.2 executed sale deed vide bearing No.4065 of 2021 dated 09.09.2021 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have presented the above said cheques and the same were dishonoured for the reasons ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed the above S.T.C. Cases as mentioned supra. 2.1. In these transfer criminal petitions, the petitioner averred that respondent No.2 was never in physical possession and had no revenue record. It is further averred that after conducting survey and fixing the boundary, an extent of Ac.3.06 gts in Sy.No.639 was found and the land in Sy.No.638 was occupied by the adjacent landowners. The petitioner booked a slot for registration and paid Rs.54,00,000/- by way of cash and sale deed bearing No.4065 of 2021 was executed on 09.09.2021 in his favour to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts. in Sy.No.639/U4, however, as per the requests of respondent Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner booked another slot on 15.09.2021 in respect of remaining land in Sy.No.639/EE1/2 admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas and paid sale consideration of Rs.41,35,000/- and balance of Rs.18,05,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed dated 15.09.2021 as agreed by the parties and physical possession was delivered to him from then. It is further averred that as per the understanding, to avoid unnecessary disputes, he issued blank cheques and agreed to return the cheques after payment of sale consideration, but respondent Nos.2 to 4 by misusing the cheques, filed the above said cases. It is further averred that as per the understanding, to avoid unnecessary disputes, he issued blank cheques and agreed to return the cheques after payment of sale consideration, but respondent Nos.2 to 4 by misusing the cheques, filed the above said cases. The petitioner further averred that in the above three cases, the cause of action is one and the same and respondent Nos.2 to 4 with an intention to harass him, filed three S.T.C. cases in different places by misusing the cheques. Hence, to avoid conflicting views, S.T.C.Nos.31 of 2022 and 5288 of 2022 may be transferred to the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad to be tried along with S.T.C.No.5087 of 2022 for better adjudication. Thus, the petitioner filed the above two transfer criminal petitions. 3. Heard N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Laeeq Unnisa Begum, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed three cases, namely, S.T.C.Nos.5288, 31 and 5087 of 2022 respectively in different places by misusing the cheques, though the cause of action arises in all the three cases are one and the same. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged cheques were issued pursuant to MoU dated 06.02.2021 executed by respondent No.4, who is the Special Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.2, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4.36 gts., in Sy.Nos.638 and 639 of Kanduwada village of Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The entire transaction has taken place at Hyderabad. With an intention to harass the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed the cases in different Courts. Hence, to avoid conflicting decisions and also in the interest of justice, S.T.C.Nos.31 and 5288 of 2022 to be transferred to the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad to be tried along with S.T.C.No.5087 of 2022 simultaneously. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the transfer applications filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law. The cheques were issued by the petitioner was presented in the respective banks of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the same were dishonoured on the ground of ‘funds insufficient’. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the transfer applications filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law. The cheques were issued by the petitioner was presented in the respective banks of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the same were dishonoured on the ground of ‘funds insufficient’. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Act filed the complaints against the petitioner before the respective Courts, which are having competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints. 5.1. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy , Transfer Petitions/(Criminal) No. 655 of 2022. 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. Even according to the respective parties, respondent No.2 is owner and possessor of open land in Sy.Nos.638 and 639 to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas and Ac.4.26 guntas, totally Ac.4.36 guntas, situated at Kanduwada village of Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was purchased through registered sale deeds vide bearing documents No.1686 dated 26.04.2003 and 1689 dated 26.04.2003. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the above said property. The petitioner and respondent No.4 have entered into MoU on 06.02.2021. As per MoU, respondent No.4 offered to sell the said property in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.36 lakhs per acre and the total sale consideration is Rs.1,76,40,000/- and accordingly, the petitioner had issued Cheque No.630560 for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.2, Cheque No.630563 for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.3, Cheque Nos.630558 and 630559 dated 24.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.2 executed sale deed vide bearing No.4065 of 2021 dated 09.09.2021 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have presented the above said cheques and the same were dishonoured for the reasons ‘funds insufficient’. 7. According to the petitioner, he subsequently paid the cash to an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 09.09.2021 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.639/U4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have presented the above said cheques and the same were dishonoured for the reasons ‘funds insufficient’. 7. According to the petitioner, he subsequently paid the cash to an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 09.09.2021 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.639/U4. Thereafter, he paid the sale consideration of Rs.41,35,000/- and balance of Rs.18,05,000/- at the time of execution of the registered sale deed dated 15.09.2021 by way of cash and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have delivered the physical possession to him. As per the understanding between the parties, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have agreed to return the said cheques after receiving the sale consideration. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4 even after receiving the entire sale consideration on 09.09.2021 and 15.09.2021 by way of cash, they failed to return the said cheques, on the other hand, by mis-using the above said cheques filed the above said complaints. 8. Even according to the parties, the cheques issued by the petitioner pursuant to MoU dated 06.02.2021 in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4 with respect to the property to an extent of Ac.4.36 guntas. In all the three cases, the case of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that in spite of execution of sale deeds, the petitioner has not paid the sale consideration and the cheques which were issued by the petitioner were dishonoured. Whereas, the case of the petitioner is that he paid the entire sale consideration by way of cash, however, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not refunded the cheques. In all the three cases, the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused. The defence is going to be adduced by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 is also is one and the same. Hence, to avoid conflicting decisions in all the three matters and to render substantial justice to the parties, this Court is of the considered view that three matters have to be adjudicated by one Court. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not having any objection to transfer the cases pending before the Courts of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to the Court of Peddapalli. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not having any objection to transfer the cases pending before the Courts of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to the Court of Peddapalli. If the case pending before the Peddapalli Court i.e., S.T.C.No.31 of 2022, transferred to the Court of Secunderabad as sought by the petitioner, it is very difficult to respondent No.2 to travel from Peddapalli to Hyderabad, as she is 54 years old lady and suffering with health problems. 10. Insofar as above said submission is concerned, even according to the pleadings, respondent No.2 had executed Special GPA in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4.36 guntas. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 and the petitioner have entered into MoU on 06.02.2021 and the entire transaction has taken place at Hyderabad. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that instead of transferring the two cases from the Courts of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to the Court of Peddapalli, the matters pending before the Courts of Secunderabad and Peddapalli have to be transferred to the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranja Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Nalini Jayanthi supra held that basing on the convenience of the accused, he is not entitled to seek transfer the case filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. The above said order relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the petitioner herein is seeking transfer of the cases to avoid conflicting decisions, but not for his convenience. 12. It is also pertinent to mention herein that in Nathilal v. State of U.P. , 1988 SCC OnLine SC 440 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2, reads as follows: “We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.” 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that to avoid conflicting decisions in three cases, which are pending before the different Courts, S.T.C.No.31 of 2022 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Peddapalli and S.T.C.No.5087 of 2022 pending on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, are transferred to the Court of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad. The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad, is directed to disposes of S.T.C.Nos.31, 5087 and 5288 of 2022 simultaneously, in accordance with law. Taking into consideration the age of respondent No.2, who is complainant in S.T.C.No.31 of 2022, her presence is dispensed with, unless her presence is specifically required in the said cases, subject to the condition of respondent No.2 being represented by her counsel on every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of respondent on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for her appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 14. With the above said directions, the transfer criminal petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.