SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arvind Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 6 August, 2018


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5720/2016

Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Kishore Kumar B/c Soni , R/o Arnod, District
Pratapgarh, Raj.



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.


/ Order


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

District Kota.

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.



Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation