LexMONICA versus SATISH SHARMA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(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 A 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS WITH T.P. Crl. No. 259-260 of 2007. Petitioner-in-person. (2009] 11 S.C.R B Vikas Pahwa, B.K. Patra (for Rishi Malhotra), Kumar c Kartikay, Neelu Sharma, Ranvijay, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Indra Sawhney and Sushma Suri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 c 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 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 N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.