Crl.M. No. M-27846 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M-27846 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.10.2009. ... Tarsem Singh and others ................ Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint No. 90/1 dated 2.9.2004 under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot. Kanchan w/o Parmodh Singh filed a complaint under Section 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot. The only point urged before me is that the Court at Pathankot has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that place. However, I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. There is specific Crl.M. No. M-27846 of 2009 -2- allegation of cruelty at Pathankot. The complainant has also pleaded in the complaint that she is residing at village Langa, P.O. Bhanguri, Tehsil Dharkalan, District Gurdaspur. Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. lays down that when an offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another area in that case, it can be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over both the areas. Section 181 (4) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “181 (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.” So, from the perusal of the said provision of law, it is clear that offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust can be tried by the Court where any part of the property which is subject of the “offence received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person”. So, in these circumstances, since the complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of Court at Pathankot and the dowry articles are required to be accounted for there, it cannot be said that the said Court has no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 7.10.2009. Judge chugh Crl.M. No. M-27846 of 2009 -3-