- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. A short question arises for adjudication in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and five others are accused in a complaint filed by Smt. Padma Sharma which is pending in the court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged hence this application is being dispos ed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) IT appears that Smt. Padma Sharma was married to applicant Rajinder Kumar Sharma. Some dispute has arisen between the complainant and her husband and his other relatives on the other hand. The said com plaint has been filed under Section 406/498-A, I. P. C. (Polics Station Kotwali Nagar) and is pending as case No. 857 of 1982 in the court of VII Additional Mwnsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr. As two sections indicate, sum and substance of the alleged complaint is that the amounts, presentations and valuables which Smt. Padam Sharma had received at the time of marriage, are alleged to have been embezzled and misappropriated by the accused applicants. The question from the facts referred to above is as to which court has jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint. Sri S. N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, has placed reliance upon averments made in the complaint to the effect that after having received the amounts, presentations and valuables, admittedly the complainant came to live with her in-laws in Delhi and she alleges that there in Delhi accused opposite parties have misappropriated those amounts, presentations and valuables. That being so Bulandshahr court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and proceed with the matter in the said district.
(3.) SRI S. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the compalinant has been heard in opposition who said that so far as the allegations in the complaint are concerned the jurisdiction should remain with the Bulandshahr Court because the actual handing over of the amounts, presentations and the valu ables were done at Bulandshahr. But SRI Agarwal has not been able to refute the further averments made in the complaint that the so called embezzlement or the alleged misappropriation has taken place in Delhi. That being so the jurisdiction of the court has to be decided only on the basis of the tentative finding as to where embezzlement has taken place. This forces a look on the relevant paragraph of the complaint, trans lated into English which will read as under : "complainant, on reaching her in-laws place handed over her entire 'stridhan' to her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law, elder brother of husband and sisters of husband on the specific under standing that whenever the complainant will demand those articles for using them, they will return it to the complainant. All the other valuable ornament which were there, the complainant had handed over to the accused for safety purposes and therefore the accused living in the in-laws house should be termed as trustees of those goods and therefore those persons have no right to misappro priate or sell those articles. " In another paragraph in the complaint the allegations related to the actual receiving of the gifts by the complainant at the time of marriage. But then, the receiving of the gift at Bulandshahr has got nothing to do with the offence committed in Delhi. Those allegations being with tho misappropria tion/embezzlement at the in-laws house in Delhi.;