The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At HYderabad.

2. Mrs. Sadia Sajik, D/o. Mr. Abdul Khadeer Baig, Wo. Mr' Mirza Sajid Baig, Aged about 54 years, Occ.House Hold, R/o. 10-3-317, Ground Floor, Misabtank, Represented by its S.P.A holder. Mr. Abdul Rehman Baig S/o. Mr. Abdul Khadeer Baig, Aged about 57 years, Occ:Business. R/o. Flat No 303, Phase-2, A.K. Enclave, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034, Telangana State.

3. lr/r. Mirza Saiid Baig, S/o. Late Mirza Mohammed Baig Age! About 61 years, Mahal, Besides M.B. Garden Function Hall, Occ:Busine6 S/o. Peddapalli, Telangana State. -trlehboob

4. Mr. Abdul Rehman Baig, Sio. Mr. Abdul Khadeer Baig, Ag-ed about 57 years, Occ:Business. R/o. Flat No. 303, Phase-2, A.K. Enclave, Road No' 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Transfer criminal Petition filed Under section 447 0f BNSS., to transfer the sTC No.5288 of 2022,on the file of Vlll tvletropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad to the Court of the XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at secunderabad to be tried along with STC No. 508712022. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 447 (6) of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings sTc No.52B8 of 2022, on the file of vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan complex, Near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, HYderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner (in both the Tr.Criminal petitions) Counsel for the ResPondent No.1 (in both the Tr.Criminal petitions) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 :SRI. N BHUJANGA RAO : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : NONE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 118 and LL9 of2024 COMMON ORDER: These transfer criminai petitions have been hled invoking the provisions of section 447 of t]ne Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSSJ seeking transfer of S T C No'3i of 2022 on the h1e of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Peddapalli and S T C'No'5288 of 2022 on the frle of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, near Exhibition Grounds, Nampa11y, Hyderabad, to the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad to be tried along u,ith S.T.C.No.5087 of 2022. 1 . 1 . [n these two transfer criminal petitions, the parties are one and Lhe same and the issue raised in both the cases is similar one Hence' these t\.o transfer criminal petitions are clubbed together and disposed of the same by a common order' Iracts giving rising to hling of these transfer criminal petitions 2. bricfly stated are that respondent No.3 filed complaint unde r Sections 190(1)(9) and 20O of Cr.P.C., in S.T.C.No 31 ol 2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Peddapalli and respondent No 2 filed S.T.C.No.5288of2022onthelrleoftheVIIIMetropolitanMagistratc, Nampally and respondent No 4 filed S'T C'No'5087 ol 2022 on the fi1e - 2 Act,). of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 13g and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lgg l (hereinafter referred to, as ,NI In the above said cases, they averred that respondent No.2 is ou,ner and possessor of open Iand in Sy.Nos.63g and 639 to an extent of Ac.0.1O 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 uide 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, u,ho 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 peritioner and respondent No.4 ha'e entered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 06.02.2021 at Hlrdgrafad. 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 Rs1,76,40,0O0/ . The petitioner requested respondent Nos.2 to 4 to register the part of the land to an extent of Ac.1.2O 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. 12,5O,000/- in favour of respondent No.2, Cheque No.63O563 for an amount of Rs.7,0O,000/- in favour of respondent No.3, Cheque Nos.630558 and 63O559 dated 24.IO.2O21 fot an amount of Rs. 17,5O,000/- in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.2 executed sale deed uide bearng No.4065 of 2O2l dated 09.09.2021 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 [o 4 have presented the above said cheques and the same n'ere dishonoured for the reasons 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have hled 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 ol Ac.3.06 gts in Sy No.639 was lound 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 ol 2021 was cxecuted on Og.Og.2O2l in his favour to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts. in Sy-No.639 lU4, 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 / EE 1/ 2 admeasuring Ac.7.26 gunlas and paid sale consideration of Rs.41,35,OOO/- and balance of Rs.18,O5,00O/- at the l ! I l I I i I 4 time of registration of sale deed dated lS.Og.2O2I as agreecl by the parties and physical possession was deiivered to him from then. It is further avcrred that as per the understanding, to avoid unnecessary disputes, he issued blank cheques and agreed to return the chcques after paymcnt 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 intenlion to I'rarass him, filed three S.T.C. cases in different places by misusing thc cheques. Hence, to avoid conflicting views, S.T.C.Nos.3l of 2022 and, 5288 of 2022 nay be transferred to the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad to be tried along with S.T.C.No.5OS7 of 2022 for better adjudication. Thus, the petitioncr filed the above tu,o transfer crimrnal petitions.

3. Heard N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the pctitioner, Ms. Laecq Unnisa Begum, learned counsel for responclent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 State.

4. Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed three cases, namely, S.T.C.Nos.52gg, 31 and 5O87 of 2022 respectively in different places by misusing the cheques, though the cause of action arises in ai1 the three cases are one and the same. Even according to the aliegations made in the complaint, the alleged cheques were issued pursuant to MoU dated 06.02.2021 cxecuted 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 agriculturai land to an extent of Ac.4.36 gts., in Sy.Nos.63B 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 differen L Courts. Hence, to avoid conflicting decisions and also rn the inLerest 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 dishonoure d on the ground of 'funds insufficient'. l?espondent 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. I I i 6

5.1. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment ol the Hon'blc Supreme Court in S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy (Transfer peLition (s)/ (Criminal) No.655 of 2022.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions made b5r 1fig respective parties and perused the material available on record. Even according to the respective parties, respondent No.2 is ou,ner and possessor of open land in Sy.Nos.63g and 639 to an extent ol.Ac.O.l0 guntas and Ac.4.26 guntas, totally Ac.4.36 guntas, situatcd at Kanduvrada village o[ Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy DistricL, and thc same was purchased through regisLered sale deecls uide bearrng documents No.1686 dated 26.04.2003 and 1689 dated 26.O4.2OO3. lt 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. Thc petitioner and respondent No.4 have entered into MoU on 06.02'2021 . As per MoU, respondent No.4 offered to selr thc said property in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.36 lakhs per acrc and the total salc consideration is Rs. 1,76,4O,OO0 / - and accordingly, the petitioner had issued Cheque No.63056O for an amount of Rs.i2,5O,000/- in favour of respondent No.2, Cheque No.630563 for an amount of Rs.7,00,OOO/_ in favour of respondent No.3, Cheque Nos.63O558 and 630.559 dated 24.IO.2O21 Ibr an amount of Rs.17,5O,000/- in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.2 7 executed sale deed uide bearing No.406S of 2O2l d,ated, 09.O9.2021 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 insufiicient'.

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 09.09.2O2 1 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,OOO/- and balance of Rs. 18,05,0 OO I - at the time ol execution ol the re gistered sale deed dated lS.Og.2O2l 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 considera[ion. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4 even after receiving the entire sale consideration on 09.O9.2021 and 15.O9.2O21 by way of cash, they failed to return the said cheques, on the other hand, by mis-using the abovc 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 properly 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 I t i I B 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, howevcr, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not refunded the chcques. In al1 the three cases, the petitioner was arrayed as solc accused. The defence is going to be adduced by the petitioner ancl 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 considercd view that three matters have to be adjudicatcd bv onc 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 pcnding 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, rransfcrred to the Court of Secunderabad as sought by the petitioner, it is very difficult to respondent No.2 to travel from peddapalli lo Hyderabad, as she is 54 years old lady and suffering wilh health problems.

10. Insofar as above said submission is concerned, even according to the pleadings, respondent No.2 had executed Special GpA in favour 9 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 Courl 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 thc Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranja Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nalini Jayanthi supra h-eld 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 ! I 'l 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.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid at paragraph No.2, reads as follows: ' 1988 scc onlin e *ffi 10 "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 e.r,idence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgmcnt. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case ar-rd aftcr recording all the evidcnce he must hear the arguments but rcserue the judgment in that case. The same learned .Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by trvo separale judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he cal rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evrdence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can thc judge be influenced by whater.er is argued in thc cross cnsc. Each case must be decided on the basis of the cvidence rvhich has been placed on record in that p:rrticular case lvi[houL berng influenccd in any manner by the evidence or arguments urgcd in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the othcr.,,

13. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered 'ierv +tt to avoid conflicting decisions in three cases, which are pending before the different courts, s.T.c.No.31 of 2022 pending on the fire of the Metropolitan Magistrate, peddapalli and S..l..C.No.SOST of 2022 pending on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistratc at Secunderabad, are transferred to the court of the \r I Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, near Exhibition Grounds, VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, near trxhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad. The learned Nampa111,, i, ; i 11 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.3lof2022,herpresenceisdispensedwith,unlessher 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 ln case of non-appearance of respondent on the specific date so hxed by lhe 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' thc transfer criminal petlllons are disposed of accordingly' No costs' Miscellaneousapplications,pendingifany,shallstandclosed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII r\}1) cTloN o SE FFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. SREENIVAS RAO (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To,

1. The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, at peddapalli. 2. The Court of the XXll ft/etropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. 3. The Court of Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, [Vlanoranjan Complex, Neaf FYhihitinn Grnrrnr'le I\la^.^^rr" tr'-r---r- - ' \ I , t I I I I I I

4. The Court of the XXll Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad 5. The Under Secretarv Union of lndia Ministry of law, Justice and " 'eis '|r'rr I's'r' v Company Affairs, New Delhi- Buildings Hyderabad.

5. The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court 6. 11 LR Copies. 7. Two CCs to the public pro-s^ecutor, High Court for the For the State of ^ 8. One CC to SRt. N BHUJAIJGA RAO Advocate topucl 9. Two CD Copies D,tt- PCSD/PSI, \ T' Telangana, At Hyderabad IOUTI ' .' ..-,.t:r.t*Lr:a:-tt ,:i*'..li \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 I ( o o ( t IsEHT 4 r4. B A ElJ m6 CTA.ssD i tl,l -t COMMON ORDER TRCRLP.NoS.118 & 119of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITIONS (A- ,{+\z\- 6) \j