Delhi District Court
Cr No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain vs . State & Ors." on 1 November, 2014
CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN, ASJ-04
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA ,NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.85/14
In the matter of:
Santosh Jain
W/o Sh. Suresh Chand Jain
R/o D3 & D-4, Himalayan Residency,
Plot no. 10, Sector 22, Dwarka
New Delhi -110075
... Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. The D. Commissioner, South West District, Dwarka, Delhi
3. The District Magistrate, South West District, Dwarka, Delhi
4. The SDM,South West District, Dwarka, Delhi
5. The SHO, PS Dwarka Sector 23, Delhi.
6. The Station Officer, PS Kotwali, Mathura (UP)
7. The Station Officer, PS Vrindavan, Mathura (UP)
8. SI Ranjeet Singh, PS Kotwali, Mathura (UP)
9. SI Vinod Kr. Mishra, PS Vrindavan, Mathura (UP)
... Respondents
Date of institution of Revision : 01.09.2014
Date on which judgment reserved : 17.10.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 01.11.2014
Criminal Revision Page 1 of 6
CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
ORDER
1. By present order I will dispose off the Criminal Revision Petition filed U/s 397/399/400 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby transferring the application filed by the revisionist u/s 84 Cr.P.C for adjudication to the Court of Ld. CJM, Mathura.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist has alleged that owning to some dispute regarding purchase of share of land of Koshda Mandakini Project, FIRs bearing No. 93/14 and 206/14, PS Vrindavan, District Mathura was registered against son of the revisionist namely Ajay Kumar Jain. In the proceedings of the said FIR, Ld CJM Mathura directed the issuance of process U/s 83 of Cr.PC. against Ajay Jain and Vijay Jain (Sons of revisionist) and a direction for attachment of moveable property of the said accused persons was passed. The Mathura Police in execution of process U/s 83 Cr.P.C put its lock on the properties of revisionist bearing no. D3 & D-4, Himalayan Residency, Plot no. 10, Sector 22, Dwarka.
3. Pursuant to the act of the officials of Mathura Police, the revisionist filed an application U/s 84(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court thereby submitting that the attachment of the properties of the revisionist by the Mathura Police is illegal as the revisionist is the exclusive owner of the Criminal Revision Page 2 of 6 CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
attached properties and the Mathura Police had no right to illegally trespass into the house of the revisionist.
4. The Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 30.08.2014 held that since the Ld. CJM, Mathura, UP is seized of the matter, therefore, in order to avoid divergent views the application of the revisionist U/s 84(2) of Cr.P.C be adjudicated by the said Court and passed directions for sending the application of the revisionist along with the reply filed on behalf of the Mathura Police to the Court of Ld. CJM, Mathura in a sealed cover.
5. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to the law and there was no justification for the Trial Court to transfer the application of the revisionist when there is a specific provision U/s 84 (2) of Cr.P.C which enables the trial court to adjudicate the objections of the revisionist. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court totally ignored and overlook the facts and law point whereby a specific provision has been made for filing the objections before the Court of CMM in which the attachment is made U/s 84 Cr.P.C.
6. The revisionist has further submitted that the Trial Court overlooked the fact that the revisionist is a female senior citizen aged about 65 years and is running from pillar to post for the roof on her head and is Criminal Revision Page 3 of 6 CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
managing to live in temples and contended that the Ld. Trial Court has only interpreted that CJM, Mathura is seized of the matter whereas the revisionist has nothing to do with the case at Mathura and the Mathura police had wrongly and illegally broke open the locks of the applicant.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and I have gone through the record.
8. The perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the attachment of the properties in question was made pursuant to the orders dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Court of Ld. CJM, Mathura. The copy of the order dated 19.06.2014 is on record wherein Ld. CJM passed an order for attaching the property no. D3 & D4, Himalayan Residency, Plot no. 10, Sector 22, Dwarka. Thus, it is evident that while attaching these properties, the Mathura police has acted as per the directions passed by the Court of Ld. CJM, Mathura.
9. Section 84 CrPC lays down: Claims and objections to attachment.-- (1) If any claim is preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of, any property attached under Section 83, within six months from the date of such attachment, by any person other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the claimant or objector has an interest in such property, and that such interest is not liable to attachment under Section 83, the claim or objection shall be inquired into, and may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part: Provided that any claim preferred or objection made within the period allowed by this sub-section may, in the event of the death of the claimant or objector, be continued by his legal representative. Criminal Revision Page 4 of 6
CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
(2) Claims or objections under sub-section (1) may be preferred or made in the Court by which the order of attachment is issued, or, if the claim orobjection is in respect of property attached under an order endorsed under sub-section (2) of Section 83, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district in which the attachment is made.
...............
10. It is clear that from reading the above stated provisions that the objections to the attachment made under section 83 Cr.P.C can be filed either in the Court which has ordered the attachment or the Court of CJM in whose jurisdiction the attached property lies.
11. The Trial Court record demonstrates that the order of attachment of the properties in question was passed by the Mathura Court hence, by no means it can be said that the Mathura Court was not seized the matter. No doubt the attached property situates within the jurisdiction of the Ld Trial Court but the fact remains that Ld CJM, Mathura had passed the order of attachment. Thus, the Court of CJM ,Mathura is on better footing to adjudicate the controversy. In such facts, in order to avoid divergent views and in interest of justice, the Ld Trial Court has rightly concluded that the application of the revisionist filed under section 84(2) Cr.P.C should have been heard and adjudicated by the Court of Ld CJM, Mathura and no fault can be found in the said conclusion arrived at by the Ld Trial Court. Criminal Revision Page 5 of 6
CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
12. However, the Ld Trial Court ought not to have transferred the application by itself rather should have allowed the revisionist to withdraw the application or should have dismissed the same with liberty to the revisionist to approach the Court of Ld CJM, Mathura for agitating her objections to the attachment.
13. Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussions, the order dated 30.08.2014 is modified to the extent that the application filed by the revisionist u/s 84(2) Cr.P.C before the Trial Court stands dismissed with liberty to the revisionist to approach the Court of Ld CJM, Mathura for agitating her objections to the attachment made. The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.
TCR be sent back along with the copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 1st November 2014.
(Gautam Manan)
ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
Criminal Revision Page 6 of 6
CR No. 85/14 "Santosh Jain Vs. State & Ors."
01.11.2014
Present: None
Vide separate orders of even date, the order dated 30.08.2014 is modified to the extent that the application filed by the revisionist u/s 84(2) Cr.P.C before the Trial Court stands dismissed with liberty to the revisionist to approach the Court of Ld CJM, Mathura for agitating her objections to the attachment made. The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.
TCR be sent back along with the copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
(Gautam Manan) ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/01.11.2014 Criminal Revision Page 7 of 6