Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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 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. c
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.
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 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. 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.] 10th July, 2007, Station House Officer of P.S. Moti Dungri, 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.
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 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 c (2009] 11 S.C.R. 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 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 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.