Back
2009(5) Supreme 605
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Monica — Petitioner
versus
Satish Sharma and another — Respondents
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 258 of 2007
with
Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 259-260 of 2007
Decided on : 27-07-2009
Facts of the Case :
The petitioners filed some criminal cases in the Patiala Courts of New Delhi against her husband and in-laws and on the ground that the in-laws have jumped the bail granted to them, proceedings under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. initiated against them. Her husband and mother-in-law declared as absconders and their house at New Delhi was attached. Another attachment against a property situated in Jaipur was sought to be executed with an order of the Patiala Court of New Delhi, though none of the in-laws stayed there for the past 40 years and her father-in-law was co-sharer in the property. While serving and executing the orders in Jaipur the petitioners complained of non-co-operation. However ultimately an order of status quo passed by the S.H.O. at Jaipur. The occupant of the property at Jaipur filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners that she had produced a forged document of the court order purported to have been issued under Section 83(4)(c) as one under Section 83(4)(a). (Paras 3 to 10)
Findings of the Court :
The alleged forgery having taken place in the Jaipur, the transfer of the proceedings can not be transferred on the mere perceived inconvenience to the petitioner. No grounds proved under Section 506 for transfer of the proceedings from Jaipur to Delhi. (Paras 14 and 15)
Result : Transfer Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
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 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 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
