MONICAversusSATISH SHARMA & ANR.

                                    (2009) 11 S.C.R. 449

,.    ~
                                          MONICA                              A
                                              v.
                                SATISH SHARMA & ANR.
                         (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 258 of 2007)

                                      JULY 27, 2009
                                                                              B
                         [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ]

                    Transfer petition - Criminal case by petitioner-wife
              against husband and her in-laws - Husband and mother-in-
              law declared proclaimed offenders - Father-in-law jointly       c
              owned property with respondent no. 1 - Attachment of property
              sought - Execution proceedings u/s.83 Cr.P.C. in respect of
              property in Jaipur - Revision petition by respondent no. 1.
              before Additional District Judge, Jaipur - Petitioner seeking
              transfer of revision petition to Sessions Judge, Delhi and      D
              transfer of execution proceedings in respect of property in
              Jaipur to DCP, New Delhi - Also seeking transfer of petition
              u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. before Rajasthan High Court to Delhi High
              Court - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable -
              Respondent no. 1 and other witnesses not involved in the        E
              criminal case - Act of commission of forgery took place at
              Jaipur - Most of witnesses are from Jaipur only - Also
              petitioner need not attend the proceedings pending before
              Sessions Judge, Jaipur or High Court of Rajasthan in person
      ~
              - More so investigation not completed - Thus, no ground to      F
              transfer the matters.

                 Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6
              sec 204, referred to.
                 '
                                     Case Law Reference:                      G
                     (2000) 6   sec 204      Referred to.         Para-16
 ..       ~

                    CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition
              (Crl.) No. 258 of 2007.
                                       449                                    H
    450        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009] 11 S.C.R


A                                 WITH

    T.P. Crl. No. 259-260 of 2007.

          Petitioner-in-person.

B        Vikas Pahwa, B.K. Patra (for Rishi Malhotra), Kumar
    Kartikay, Neelu Sharma, Ranvijay, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Indra
    Sawhney and Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c       5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 258 of 2007
  has been filed by Monica seeking transfer of Crl. Revision
  Petition No.62 of 2007 tiled 'Satish Sharma and another ·1s.
  Monica and others' filed by respondent No.1. from the Court
  of Additional District Judge, Jaipur to the Court of Additio11al
D District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
  and for transfer of execution proceedings under Section 83 of
  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') in
  respect of property No.433, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, to the
  Deputy Commission of Police, South Zone, New Delhi.
E
        2. Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 259-260 of 2007 have beien
  filed by Monica and her mother, Smt. Vinay Malhotra for tram;fer
  of S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1402 of 2007 filed by them under
  Section 482 of the Code for quashing of FIR No.170 of 2007
F pending before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipru Bench, to
  the High Court of Delhi.

       3. Admittedly petitioner-Monica has initiated some criminal
  cases against her husband and in-laws. They had been granted
  bail. Inter alia on the premise that they had jumped bail,
G proceedings under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure were initiated against" them.

       4. Husband and mother-in-law of Monica were declared
  proclaimed offenders. Property of the mother-in-law of Monica
H at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was sealed. Father-in-law of
        MONICA v. SATISH SHARMA & ANR. [S.B.SINHA, J.)           451


     petitioner Monica had a joint property at Jaipur. The same is      A
     said to be jointly owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and father-
     in-law of petitioner-Monica. The said property was sought to
     be attached. Allegedly S.H.O., P.S. Moti Dungri, Jaipur within
     whose jurisdiction the said property is situate was non-co-
     operative. However, the said property was attached by S.H.O.       B
     P .S. Moti Dungri unilaterally on 20th June, 2007 in terms of
     Section 83(4)(c) of the Code i.e. to maintain status quo.

          5. Petitioner-Monica thereafter filed an application before
     the trial court at Delhi that the property be sealed in terms of
     Section 83(4)(a) of the Code whereupon a direction in that         c
     behalf was issued on 10th July, 2007.

           6. On an allegation that the Monica and her ,mother
     (petitioners) had forged the_ stay order dated 10th July, 2007
     without seeking clarifications from the court of learned           D
     Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, first
     information report was lodged by the first respondent (Satish
·-   Sharma) with the concerned Police Station. It was alleged that
     the petitioners had produced the said forged order dated 10th
     July, 2007 before the local police. Respondent No.1, however,      E
     when checked the original order from the Court of Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and came to learn
     that the order actually was issued under Section 83(4)(c) of the
     Code and not under Section 83(4)(a).

          7. 'Petitioner-Monica, wh0 appears in person would            F
     contend that as a criminal case under Section 498N406 and
     34 of the Indian Penal Code and other proceedings against her
     husband/her parents-in-law at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
     are pending in which she had been appearing in person,
     proceedings pending at Jaipur be transferred to Delhi.             G

           8. Respondent No.1 is a relative of father-in-law of the
     petitioner. He has nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute
     and/or the criminal case filed by the petitioner-Monica against
     her husband and her in-laws. He is merely a co-sharer in the       H
    452        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A   property of the father-in-law of the petitioner. It is beyond any
    doubt or dispute that whereas in terms of Section 83(4)(a) of
    the Code the property has to be taken possession whereas in
    terms of the provisions of Section 83(4)(c) merely an order of
    prohibitory injunction to be passed.
B         9. If the respondents concerned are in physical possession
    of the property, the question of dispossessing them by wav of
    attachment for jumping of bail by the father-in-law of the
    petitioner did not arise.

c       10. Indisputably the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
    Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on 30th April,
    2007 inter alia passed the following order :-

          "Meanwhile complainant submits that she could not get the
          process u/s 83 Cr.PC executed insofar as Jaipur property
D
          is concerned. She requests for one more date. Under
          these circumstances, issue fresh process Us 83 CrPC
          against the accused Bhaskar Sharma in respect of the
          Jaipur property to be got executed with the aid and
          assistance of the local police. At this·stage, on request,
E         the said process be given dasti to the complainant for
          execution."

          Petitioner received the said process on 5th May, 2007.

p        11. Respondent No.1 contends that no member of her in-
    laws' family had lived at the said house for the last forty years.

       12. We have noticed hereinabove that allegations had a.lso
  been made by the petitioners against the Station House Officer
  of P.S. Moti Dungri, Jaipur and on the basis of such allegations
G the Court of Additional Chi~f Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
  House Courts, New Delhi, was also moved.
                                                                         •
       13. We have gone through the list of dates contained in
  the counter-affidavit, on perusal whereof it appears that in
H pursuance of the execution of the order of attachment dated
      MONICA v. SATISH SHARMA & ANR. [S.B.SINHA, J.]             453
•
    10th July, 2007, Station House Officer of P.S. Moti Dungri, A
    Jaipur called the occupants of the property on 19th July, 2007
    and dire~ted them to vacate the property immediately as the
    same would be sealed on 20th July, 2007. It is only then that
    respondent No.1 obtained a copy of the said order dated 10th ·
    July, 2007 by fax on 19th July, 2007.                          B

         14. As the respondent No.1 and the other witnesses have
    nothing to do with the criminal case pending in the Court of
    Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New
    Delhi and as the act of commission of forgery is said to have       C
    taken place at Jaipur, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit
    case where the order of the transfer should be passed as most
    of witnesses are from Jaipur only. Furthermore, the petitioner
    need not even attend the proceedings pending before the
    learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur or the High court of
    Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in person.                                  D

         15. It furthermore appears that the investigation is not yet
    complete. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that
    the petitioners have not yet been examined by the Investigating
    Officer.                                                            E

        16. This Court in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamul
    Nadu, [(2000) 6 SCC 204] has held :-

        "7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and
        impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous                    F
        considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in
        the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any
        party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under
        Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section
        406 CrPC. The apprehension of not getting a fair and            G
        impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and
        not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it
        appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not
        possible impartially and objectively and without any bias,
        before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court    H
    454          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2009] 11 S.C.R.


A          may transfer the case to another court where it feels that
           holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal
           or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a
           transfer petition which has always to be decided on the
           basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties
B          including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also
           a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition.
           The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean
           the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached
           the court on misconceived notions of apprehension.
c          Convenience for the purposes of transfer mea1s the
           convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the
           witnesses and the larger interest of the society."

        17. For the reasons mentioned above we find no 9round
  to transfer the matters from Jaipur to Delhi. The transfer p19titions
D are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and
  circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                               Transfer Petitions dismissed.



                                                                          '




                                                                          -