IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 21327 of 2014 BETWEEN A.Sambi Reddy AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Prohibition against respondent Nos.2 and 3 from proceeding with the complaint filed by respondent No.4, which is subject matter of C.C.No.229 of 2012 on the file of IX Special Metropolitan Magsitrate at Hyderabad, respondent No.3.
The said C.C. is under trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, alleged against the petitioner. It is evident from the record produced by the petitioner himself that the said criminal case is at the stage of trial, where complainant has already been examined long back. Petitioner now seeks a writ of Prohibition on the ground that the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 invoked in the matter is, in fact, required to be exercised by III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as according to him the place of jurisdiction falls within the Police Station, Medpally, Cyberabad Sessions Division. Petitioner also states that it is only the jurisdictional criminal court, which can take cognizance, and not respondent No.3.
I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition to interdict the trial, which is at the advance stage, and the ground of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner by the present writ petition appears to be only pressed into service to delay the trial. Petitioner can always raise the aforesaid ground before the court below during the trial of the said criminal case. Hence, I do not find any inherent lack of jurisdiction warranting issuance of writ of Prohibition as sought for.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 30, 2014 LMV