Skip to content


G. Sreeramulu Vs. V. Rangaswamy and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ1475
AppellantG. Sreeramulu
RespondentV. Rangaswamy and anr.
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5..........i.p.c. another complaint has been filed by a-2 in c. c. 436 of 1977 in the court of sub-divisional judicial magistrate, tirupur. in that complaint the date of occurrence is stated to be 20th june 1977. rangaswamy, who is the complainant before the sub-divisional judicial magistrate, tirupur, has made sriramulu as a-l and g. v. s. ranga rao as a-2. now, g. v. s. rangarao, a-2 before the sub-divisional judicial magistrate, tirupur, is not the accused in c, c. 436 of 1977 on the file of the xi metropolitan magistrate, secunderabad, nor is subrah-manyam, a-l, in c. c. no. 436 of 1977 on the file of the xi metropolitan magistrate, secunderabad, an accused in the complaint filed before the sub-divisional judicial magistrate, tirupur.the facts alleged in the complaint filed before the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Muktadar, J.

1. The petitioner filed a complaint in the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad out of which C. C. 436 of 1977 arises. In that complaint the petitioner herein has made N. K. Subrahmanyam as Accused-1 and V. Rangaswamy as Accused-2 and according to the petitioner, the date of occurrence is in April, 1977. The facts alleged in the complaint, according to the petitioner, make out a case under Sections 409 and 420, I.P.C. Another complaint has been filed by A-2 in C. C. 436 of 1977 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. In that complaint the date of occurrence is stated to be 20th June 1977. Rangaswamy, who is the complainant before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, has made sriramulu as A-l and G. V. S. Ranga Rao as A-2. Now, G. V. S. Rangarao, A-2 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, is not the accused in C, C. 436 of 1977 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, nor is Subrah-manyam, A-l, in C. C. No. 436 of 1977 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, an accused in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur.

The facts alleged in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, make out a case of an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. An application has been filed by the complainant in C. C. 436/77 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, under Section 186 of the new Criminal Procedure Code to call for the complaint which has been filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. Mr. D. V. K. Sarma the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner herein relies upon the provisions of Section 186(b) of the new Criminal Procedure Code and submits that since the complaint filed by his client was the first complaint, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. to call for the records in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, although the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court, The Office has raised the objection that this Court cannot invoke powers under Section 186(b), Criminal P. C. having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the Office has to be accepted and the contention advanced by Mr. Sarma has to be rejected; the reason being that the two complaints are different from each other, dates of occurrences are different and some of the accused are also different. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. applies to this case. To my mind, Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. applies only when both the cases are common and they arise out of the same occurrence or same transaction, and the parties are same, in which case, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court within whose local limits of appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced would have jurisdiction to invoke powers under Section 186(b), Criminal P. C. but to a case of this nature Section 186(b), Cr. P.C. cannot be applicable.

2. Hence the office objection is accepted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //