REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 258 OF 2007

Monica …. Petitioner

Versus

Satish Sharma and another ….Respondents

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NOs. 259-260 OF 2007

Monica and another …. Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan  ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

S.B. 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   vs.  Monica and others’ filed by respondent No.1.  

from  the  Court  of  Additional  District  Judge,  Jaipur  to  the  Court  of  

Additional 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.  

2. Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 259-260 of 2007 have been filed by  

Monica and her mother,  Smt. Vinay Malhotra for transfer 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 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, 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 at Lajpat Nagar,  

New Delhi, was sealed. Father-in-law of petitioner Monica had a joint  

property at Jaipur.   The same is said to be jointly owned by respondent  

Nos. 1 and 2 and father-in-law of petitioner-Monica.   The said property  

2

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. 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 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 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, 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, who appears in person would contend that as a  

criminal case under Section 498A/406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code  

3

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.  

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 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.  

9. If  the  respondents  concerned  are  in  physical  possession  of  the  

property, the question of dispossessing them by way of attachment for  

jumping of bail by the father-in-law of the petitioner did not arise.   

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 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  

4

the local police.  At this stage, on request, the said  process  be  given  dasti  to  the  complainant  for  execution.”  

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

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 also been made  

by the petitioners against the Station House Officer of P.S. Moti Dungri,  

Jaipur and on the basis of such allegations the Court of Additional Chief  

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  pursuance  of  the  

execution of the order of attachment dated 10th July, 2007, Station House  

Officer of P.S. Moti Dungri, Jaipur called the occupants of the property  

on 19th July, 2007 and directed 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.   

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  

5

Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala  House,  New Delhi  and  as  the  act  of  

commission of forgery is said to have 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.   

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.    

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 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  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 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  

6

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 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.  Convenience  for  the  purposes  of  transfer means 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 ground to transfer the  

matters  from  Jaipur  to  Delhi.   The  transfer  petitions  are  dismissed  

accordingly.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there  

shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………..J. [ S.B. Sinha ]

………………………………..J. [ Cyriac Joseph ]

New Delhi July 27, 2009

7