R Siva Jyothi v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-12. R Siva Jyothi v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3385 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 125OF 2025 Between : R. Siva Jyothi, Wo. Dr. S. Sai Prasad, Aged 55 years, Occ Advocate, R/o. Flat No 401, D. No. 2-2-647131311, Sai Brindavan Residency, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad ... Petitioner/Complainant AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ... RespondenURespondent 2. C. Sanni Babu, S/o. C. Mohan Rao, aged 59 Yrs. , Occ Employee, R/o. Flat No. S-1, ll Floor, D. No. 2-2-647 l3l3l 1, Sai Brindavan Residency, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-1 3 3. C. Bharathi,, Wo. C. Sanni Babu, aged 44 Yrs. , Occ Professional, R/o. Flat No. S-1, ll Floor, D. No. 2-2-647131311, Sai Brindavan Resid. ency, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-1 3 4 Vuggam Lalaiah, S/o. V. Appaiah, aged 45 Yrs. , Occ Employee R/o. Flat No F-2, I Floor, D. No.
2-2-6471313/1, Sai Brindavan Residency, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-13 5. D. Satish Chandra, S/o. D. Narsimhulu, aged 53 Yrs. , Occ. Govt. , Employee, R/o. Flat No. T-1 (301), 3rd Floor, D. No. 2-2-6471313/'1, Sai Brindavan Residency, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad -'13. ... Respondents/Acc used Petition Under Section 447 of BNSS Praying to transfer the CC. No. 899 of 2015 on the file of the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to any other Court. l. A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 447(6) BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC. No. 899 of 2015 on the file of the court of the lV ACMM, MCCC, at Hyderabad pending disposal of the main Transfer criminal petition.
Thi,; Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds i)f criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Lattupaly Anand, Advocate for the petitioner pubric prosecutor and on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 and None for the Respondent No. 2 to 5. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA AL No. 1 t2 DATE: 12. 12. 2ol25l Between: R. Siva Jyothi Petitioner/ Complainant AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and 4 others. Respondent ORDER This Transfer criminar petition is Iiled by the petitioner, who is the comprainant in c. c. No. g99 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 42o, 448, 4s2, so6 and 509 read with 34 of IPC. -petitioner earlier filed Tr. Crl. M. P. No. 16 of 2025 2.
The Sessions Judge seeking transfer the beforr: the learned of was dismissed holding that grounds case, which no were thereby, the present petition made out. Aggrieved is fiIed the learned Sessions Judge failed to conte:rdingthat consider made by the learned counsel the submissions for the petitic,ner. Court, learned counsel for the petitioner 3. In the trial the trial Court has been passing submitted that the erroneous and that the trial Court wrongly docket. orders recorded proceedings as if zr memo was filed, though in fact a petition 309 Cr'P'C. was filed; that the docket under Section order incorrectly recorded arguments dated L6. O7. 2025 as instead 12. 03. 2025; and submil. ted on O5. O3. 2O25 of that such ()rrors resulted in recalling PW. l to fill gaps in the defenct:.
He further submitted that the trial Court made contemptuous remarks against the petitioner attributing dishont:sgr and falsehood, thereby creating a reasonable appreh,--nsion of bias and prejudice, and seeks transfer of the CASC 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that cognizance was taken on 3O. 09. 2O15, copies were furnished on 31. 01. 2018, and pre-charge evidence was recorded on O8. O7. 2019. The matter was repeatedly adjourned due to petitioner's failure to adduce evidence. Though a recall petition under Section 31 1 Cr. P. C. was allowed on O9. O2. 2O23, the petitioner again delayed proceedings. Despite granting 13 adjournments, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, resulting in closure of the evidence of the complainant on 17. O5. 2O24 and posting for examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The petitioner challenged the docket order dated I7. O5. 2O24 before the Court, which was dismissed on 12. 09.
2024, and further challenged before this Court in Crl. P. No. 200O of 2025, which is pending without any stay. In the absence of stay, the trial Court proceeded with 313 Cr. P. C. examination. The respondent submits that the petitioner has been filing repeated petitions only to delay the proceedings, and no grounds exist for transfer. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has been repeatedly committing mistakes while recording docket orders, and in every docket order errors are foun<I. He further submitted that the petitioner has lost faith in thr-' trial court and apprehends that the petitioner wilr not get a fair trial therein. Hence, he requested to transfer the case 1. o another Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no illegality has been committed by thr: trial Court.
The matter pertains to the year 2015, durin6; which several officers have presided over the Court and that the petitioner has been attempting to delay the proceedings on one pretext or another without cooperating with ttre trial Court. Though she filed the complaint, she has not be,-'n diligent in adducing her evidence, and only ,*,hen the matter was posted for her evidence did she appear, which itself re'flects her conduct. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit a:ed liable to be dismissed. 8. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by both learned counsel and on careful examination of the record, this Court observes that the present Transfer Criminal Petition has been filed seeking transfer of c. c. No. gg9 0f 2015 from the court of the learned IV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, to any other Court on the ground that the trial Court is repeatedly adverse comments against the committing errors and making complainant.
It is noted that the case, being a private complaint filed in 2O15, was taken cognizance of by the trial Court for certain offences. The matter was repeatedty posted for dismissal, and only after several adjournments did the petitioner adduce her evidence. Thereafter, no further ( ( evidence was filed in support of her case. At the stage of the petitioner fi|ed a Section 31 1 Cr. P. C. examination, petition under Section 309 Cr. P. C. seeking adjournment, which was recorded as a memo. Such recording, ho',vever, a ground for transfer of the case and cannot be treated as make such bald allegations against that the petitioner cannot Court. The record clearly shows that the officers of the trial the petitioner has been dragging the matter since 2015. In these circumstances, this Court finds no valid grounds to transfer C. C. No. 899 of 2015 to any other Court. 9. Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dism issed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closeC Sd/.
S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lV Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad. - 2. One CC to Sri Lattupally Anand, Advocate [OpUCl 3. Two ,lCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for ihe state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies *""'lb-- HIGH COURT DATED:121121202s i-l 1- ,,.. :\ i( . -:i . ) ORDER 2 4 JAtl 2u6 I TRCRLP'. No. 125 ot 2025 t * DISMISSIING THE TRCRLP
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.