IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.69 of 2024

DATE: 18.12.2025

BETWEEN:

Kakkirala Srihari

…..petitioner

And

Rampalli Srinivas and another. …..Respondents/complainants

ORDER

This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the

petitioner to transfer STC.NI.No.119 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Medak to the file of the learned XII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Gopinadh Balasa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Goturi Venkatesham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent -

State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 filed multiple complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before different Courts in Hyderabad and Medak District with an intention to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that the parties and the subject matter in all the cases were the same and that the petitioner, being a businessman, was facing serious hardship in attending proceedings on different dates at different places, often resulting in issuance of warrants. In support of his submission, he relied upon the amended provision to Section 142 of the N.I. Act, stating that when more than one prosecution by the same complainant against the same drawer was pending before different courts, all such cases were liable to be transferred to the Court where the first case was filed and was pending.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to transfer STC NI No.119 of

2023 to the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the transfer criminal petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. He further submitted that the complaints were filed strictly in accordance with jurisdiction, cause of action, and the place where the respective cheques were presented and dishonoured and that the cheques involved in the two cases were deposited in different banks situated in Medak District and Hyderabad respectively, conferring separate territorial jurisdiction on the concerned courts. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Transfer Criminal Petition.

5. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel appearing and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it was the principal contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1, being the same complainant, had instituted multiple prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before different Courts in Hyderabad and Medak Districts, though the parties and the nature of transactions were common, thereby subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary hardship. The petitioner sought transfer of STC No.119 of 2023 to the Court where STC NI No.1172 of 2023 was pending, by placing reliance on the amended provisions of Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the complaints were filed strictly in accordance with territorial jurisdiction, as the cheques in question were presented and dishonoured in different banks situated at different places, conferring jurisdiction on the respective Courts. It was further contended that each complaint arose out of a distinct cheque transaction and that the amendment to Section 142 of the N.I. Act did not automatically mandate transfer of all cases to a single Court at the instance of the accused.

6. On a conjoint reading of Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act and the proviso thereto, it is evident that jurisdiction is determined with reference to the place where the cheque is presented for collection through the account of the payee.

In the present