APHC010462582023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.739 of 2023 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 10.05.2023 passed in C.C. No.935 of 2023 on the file of Court of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Between: Battula Leela Kumari, S/o Late Murali Krishna, R/o.D.No.39-9-28, f\ House Nilayam, Venkateswara Swamy Temple Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada. ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. 2. Bejjam Sai Prasad, S/o Late Bejjam Bhaskara Rao, Aged about 49 years, R/o.D.No.22-116, Badepuram Village, Hamlet o Tadikonda, Tadikonda Post and Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS 4U Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SMT TORATI SHANMUKHA PRASANNA (NONE APPEARED) The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010462582023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3368] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 739/2023 Between: 1.BATTULA LEELA KUMARI, S/0 LATE MURALI KRISHNA, R/0 * D.NO. 39-9-28,FI, HOUSE NILAYAM, VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. 2.BEJJAM SAID PRASAD, S/0 LATE BEJJAM BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 22-116, BADEPURAM VILLAGE HAMLET O TADIKONDA, TADIKONDA POST AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.CHALLAAJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.TORATI SHANMUKHA PRASANNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 739 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Hearct Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. No one appeared for respondent No.2 today, as well as on the previous adjournment. 2. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 10.05.2023 in C.C.No.935 of 2023 on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 3. The learned Magistrate under the impugned order under challenge, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of N.l. Act 1881, on the ground that the complainant did not attend the Court on 10.05.2023, and that complainant is not evincing any interest to prosecute the case, despite opportunities granted by the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would contend that originally the complaint was laid before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and later, it 3 was transferred to the Court of VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Vijayawada, and renumbered C.C.No.935 of 2023 on the file of said Court. He would further as submit that the complainant is not aware of the transfer of the case from I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, to VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Vijayawada, and no notice was issued to the complainant either by the transfer Court or transferee Court. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order mentioned that a copy of letter about transfer of cases was intimated to President/Secretary Bar Association, Bezawada, and in that view of the matter, the complainant could have attend the Court and therefore. dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel for the appellant would further argue that a letter was addressed to the Bar Association, cannot be taken 5. into consideration as a notice to the complainant, in fact, the impugned order would show that a notice was issued to the accused personally about the transfer, but no such notice was issued to the complainant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant at this juncture, brought to the notice of thii Court that as per Rule 63 in Andhra 4 Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 which stipulates that the transferee Court shall intimate the parties or their Advocates about the transfer and the date, on which i they should appear before the Court to which it has been transferred’. Similar analogy can be applied to the criminal cases also, but, in the case of hand, no such practice was followed either by the transfer Court or transferee Court. 7. In those circumstances, the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint is not sustainable in law, and liable to be set aside, as it is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Kolli Purushotham Chowdhary V. Sri Balaji Finance Corporation and Anr.\ wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that “notice is required either to the counsel of the parties, or parties”. In the case on hand, there is no notice either to the counsel of complainant on record, or to the complainant. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the impugned order, no notice was issued either to the counsel of the complainant on record or to the complainant ^ 1997 (6) ALD 717 (DB) 5 rt- except a letter to the Bar Association, which is not sufficient in the light of above legal position. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances admittedly, no notice was issued to the complainant or his counsel on record, either by the transfer Court or transferee Court, dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law, and liable to be set aside. as 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate under challenge is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned trial Court, to dispose of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, since it is an old matter. - As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To 1. The VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, (with records if any) 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] 3. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Torati Shanmukha Prasanna, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Two CD Copies TK HIGH COURT DATED; 10/09/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA No.739 of 2023 O' 1S SEP 2075 X Co ^ . Curreni section ^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL