Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Monika vs State Of Haryana on 14 July, 2025
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.30644/2025
MONIKA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 147449/2025 - EX-PARTE STAY
IA No. 147450/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 147447/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)
Date : 14-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Harvinder Chowdhury, AOR
Nishesh Sharma, Adv.
Purshotam, Adv
Sahitya Singh, Adv.
Nukul Choudhury, Adv.
Gautam Choudhury, Adv.
Rakesh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Permission to file Transfer Petition is granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Transfer of criminal proceedings pending before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, Haryana to the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, North West District Delhi
is sought by these proceedings.
4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband’s home is in
Delhi. His burnt body was found in a field in Kharkhoda, Haryana
whereafter, an FIR came to be rejected for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.15
matter
13:34:10 IST
Reason: was investigated and a chargesheet was laid on which
cognizance was taken.
1
5. Now, trial is to commence on the aforesaid police report.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that it appears from the
prosecution story that murder took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi, the prime witness, i.e., the wife of the
deceased, is located within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi
and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the proceedings are
transferred to a Competent Court within the territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi.
7. The aforesaid objection was raised before the Court at
Sonipat, Haryana and the same was rejected having regard to the
provisions of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that this
is a case where the witnesses would have to prove the circumstances
and one of the clinching circumstance would be as to from where the
deceased was taken and thereafter, found dead.
9. Be that as it may, as the matter has been investigated by the
Police of Haryana, where the body of the deceased was found, and
certain discovery was made pursuant to disclosure made during the
course of investigation, as submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to
transfer the proceedings, particularly, when it is a State
prosecuted case. However, having regard to the threat perception
disclosed by the petitioner, we are of the view that ends of
justice can be best served if a direction is issued to the
Superintendent of Police / Commanding Officer of the Police in
District Sonipat, Haryana to ensure that as and when the petitioner
appears in connection with the proceedings pending before the Court
2
in Haryana, she shall be provided adequate security and necessary
arrangements in that regard are made so that no harm occurs to her.
10. With the aforesaid observations / directions, the Transfer
Petition is disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
[ad_1]
Source link