HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5720/2016
Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Kishore Kumar B/c Soni , R/o Arnod, District
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. Heena Soni W/o Arvind Kumar, D/o Narendra Kumar B/c Soni ,
R/o In Front Of Khaira Bad Mataji Mandir, Khairabad, Ps
Ramganj Mandi, District Kota, Raj.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to assail the order passed by the two Courts below, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 177 Cr.P.C. was
Petitioner, before Court below, had questioned the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the petitioner for offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 494, 406 and 120-B I.P.C.
Admittedly, petitioner is being tried for commission of
offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. also, which is an offence of
criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust.
Istridhan of complainant till today has not been returned.
Section 181 sub Section (4) Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-5720/2016]
“181. Place of trial in case of certain offences. (1)
(4) 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.” (Emphasis supplied).
A perusal of the said Section reveals that the petitioner was
bound to return or account for dowry articles being istridhan of
respondent/aggrieved-wife at the place where she is residing.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied
upon the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of
Police, Chennai and another, reported as (2004) 8 S.C.C. 100, to
contend that no territorial jurisdiction vests in the Court at Kota District.
Admittedly, the complainant is residing within jurisdiction of
In the judgment relied, provisions of Section 181 sub
Section 4 Cr.P.C. have not been considered, which has been duly
considered in other judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, qua
territorial jurisdiction in respect of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C.
Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the
same is, hereby, dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)