IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 365 of 2010 Kshitij Rastogi & others ` …….Applicants. Versus Smt. Shruti Rastogi ……Respondent. Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the applicants as well as the respondent. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the summoning order dated 24.11.2009 issued to them by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in a Complaint Case No. 2684 of 2008 under Section 406 IPC. The primary contention of the applicants is that no offence is made out against them at Dehradun and, therefore, the Court at Dehradun has no jurisdiction in the matter. The matter pertains to Section 406 of IPC where it is alleged that the applicants are misappropriating the property which is in a locker of a bank at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the applicants states that since the locker which is in a bank is in Chandigarh and applicant no. 1 and the respondent last resided in Chandigarh as husband and wife and the marriage was solemnized in Chandigarh, there was no cause of action at Dehradun and the Court at Dehradun has no jurisdiction in the matter. On the other hand, Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the respondent asserts that the Court of Dehradun would have the jurisdiction in the matter under Section 181 (4) of Cr.P.C. inasmuch as since it is a case of criminal breach of trust and in such a matter the court would have a jurisdiction if any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was likely to be returned in that territory. Section 181 (4) of Cr.P.C. reads as under :- 2 “181.Place of trial in case of certain offences.- (1)….. (2)….. (3)…. (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.” Learned counsel for the applicants has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhura Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 09. Perused the said judgment. The judgment cited by the applicants does not refer to Section 181 (4) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. The judgment, therefore, is distinguishable and has no relevance in the present case. Since it is a disputed question of fact, it is for the court below itself to decide the issue. The present C-482 application is, therefore, dismissed with the direction that before proceeding with the matter the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun will hear all the relevant objections of the applicants including the objections relating to the jurisdiction of the Court and only thereafter proceed with the matter. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.8.2010 Avneet