1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 488/2007 (Yogendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 10.08.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. H.S.Balot, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Mehta, P.P. for the respondent State. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Degana (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court and declined to drop the proceeding pending against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the order 2 impugned. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner No.2 married to petitioner at Degana and dowry articles were also given to the petitioner at Degana, however, thereafter, the petitioner and the non-petitioner NO.2 have been residing at Kishangarh. The allegations of subjecting the non-petitioner to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry are at Kishangarh and therefore, the Court at Degana has no jurisdiction, however, the Court at Kishangarh has jurisdiction to try the case. I have carefully gone through the order impugned. In my view, the Court at Degana has jurisdiction in view of sub- section (4) of Section 181 Cr.P.C. Section 181 Cr.P.C. deals with the place of trial in case of certain offences. Sub-section (4) of Section 181 Cr.P.C. in clear terms provides that 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. In the instant case, admittedly, the alleged dowry articles were received by the petitioner at Degana and same 3 have not been returned to complainant non-petitioner No.2 even after demand and therefore, in my view, the Court at Degana has jurisdiction to inquire into and try the case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order impugned. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp