Place of Trial - Where the offence consisted of several acts in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

T.P.S.Mann, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners while seeking quashing of the FIR and setting aside of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has submitted that the Court at Faridabad had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that after being turned out of the matrimonial home, complainant-Disha was staying at Faridabad. A prayer was made by her in the FIR that her in-laws were using the dowry articles given in her marriage. Further that the dowry articles be recovered and handed-over to her.

3. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and others, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : AIR 1985 SC 628, it was held that the gifts given at the time of marriage of a Hindu woman are her Stridhan property and the husband though living together with his wife is not entitled to convert the property to his own use without her consent, if it was placed in his custody. Thus, if the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to their own use, they would expose themselves for liability under Section 405 IPC and punishable under Section 406 IPC. In Dinesh Kumar and others v. Lalita Mor and another, 1995(3) Crimes 326 (Allahabad), the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-

"Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."

were interpreted so as to hold that the place where the wife demands return of her stridhan property, will also have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal breach of trust. It was held therein as under :-

"The legislature has enacted a specific provision regarding venue of the trial of an offence of criminal breach of trust. Sub-section (4) of Section 181 Cr.P.C. provides that any offence of criminal mis-appropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of property which is the subject-matter of offence was received or retained; or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. Shri Chaturvedi has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint show that entrustment of the property as well as retention of the property by the accused is alleged to have been done at Calcutta and, therefore, the Court at Calcutta alone had the jurisdiction to try the offence and not that of Allahabad. He has further submitted that last part of sub-section (4) of Section 181 namely - or was required to be returned or accounted for - would be applicable only where there is a prior agreement or contract which has come into existence either before or simultaneously at the time of the entrustment of the property to the effect that the same was to be returned or accounted for at a different place and the provision would not be applicable where subsequent to the entrustment of the property, it was required to be returned or accounted for at another place by the owner thereof. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Report of Law Commission and also the objects and Reasons for enacting this sub-section in the Code of Criminal (Act No. 2 of 1974) which are as follows :-

".................. In view of the conflicting decisions of various High Courts, we recommend that sub-section (2) of Section 181 (now sub-section (4) be amended thus.....) same as sub-section (4). We do not think it necessary to limit the additional alternative venue, namely, the local area where the property was required (by law or contract) to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons, to cases where there is no evidence of the offence other than the failure to return or account for the property."

Reference has also been mad