When two cases arise out of the same incident and the evidence is the same in both cases, the cases should be tried together to avoid conflicting judgments.

ORDER :

Lalitha Kanneganti, J.

1. This transfer criminal petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to withdraw C.C. No. 313 of 2017 from the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam and transfer the same to the Court of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam to be tried along with S.C. No. 172 of 2017.

2. This Court by order dated 08.08.2018 has directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out personal notice on unofficial respondents and the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that notices were sent and served on unofficial respondents on 17.08.2018. Inspite of service of notices, there is no representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

3. The case of the petitioners is that on 22.12.2016 at about 6:00 P.M. when petitioner No. 1 along with his father and brother was at his house respondent Nos. 1 and 2 created nuisance and all the unofficial respondents armed with sticks and rods attacked petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 7, who received injuries and petitioner No. 7's hand was broken in the said attack. Later respondent Nos. 1 to 8 themselves got admitted in the hospital and basing on their statements, Police of Guduru Police Station registered F.I.R. No. 128 of 2016. Thereafter the statement of petitioner No. 1 was recorded and basing on his statement F.I.R. No. 129 of 2016 was registered against respondent Nos. 1 to 8. After completion of investigation charge sheets were filed in both the crimes. F.I.R. No. 128 of 2016 was numbered as S.C. No. 172 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam and F.I.R. No. 129 of 2016 was numbered as C.C. No. 313 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. Hence they are required to be tried together to avoid conflicting judgments. Hence, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri Bandi Veeranjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 9-state.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are accused in F.I.R. No. 128 of 2016 which is numbered as S.C. No. 172 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam and respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are accused in F.I.R. No. 129 of 2016 which is numbered as C.C. No. 313 of 2017. Learned counsel further submits that both crime Nos. 128 of 2016 and 129 of 2016 are case and counter case. Even as per the statements the incident has taken place on 22.12.2016 at 6:00 P.M. and if these cases are tried in two different Courts there is every likelihood of conflicting of judgments.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when they filed transfer criminal petition vide Tr. Crl. M.P. No. 108 of 2018 before Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, it was dismissed by order dated 18.06.2018 wherein the learned Judge has failed to take into consideration the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and in fact it was observed in the order that one incident took place at 6:30 P.M. and another incident is at 8:00 P.M. Learned counsel further submits that in fact in the statement it has been categorically mentioned that both the incidents happened at 6:30 but the Court below basing on the time has come to a conclusion that scene of offence is also different though the alleged incidents have taken one after the other. The Court below has opined that though the genesis of the offence might be the same in both the cases and second report was given as counter blast, they cannot be treated as case and counter case. Hence, they need not be tried by one Court and accordingly dismissed the petition.

7. Looking at the charge sheets filed in both the cases, it appears that the petitioners armed with deadly weapons attacked the family members of respondent No. 2 herein with an inten