- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. This application under Section 482, Crpc is directed against the summoning order dated 25th April, 1994 (Annexure '9' to the petition ). By this order the accused have been summoned to face the trial under Section 406, IPC.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Sunita is the wife of applicant No. 2 Satish Kumar. Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Sunita filed a complaint Annexure-5 to the petition against the present applicant in which it was stated that she was married to Satish Kumar at Bareily. According to the complaint on 21-2-1992 Lagan ceremony took place in which cash, jewellary and some gifts were given to Smt. Sunita by her parents. All those articles were handed over by Smt. Sunita to her husband Satish and her mother-in-law Smt. Krishna with the understanding that the articles will be handed over to her when she reaches the matrimonial home. At the time of marriage also fridge, cooler, furniture etc. were given and the parents of Smt. Sunita handed over these articles to Satish Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Narendra with the same understanding. After some time family member of the husband started ill- treating her in order to extract dowry and in spite of her repeated demands, cash jewellery and other valuable items were not returned to her. Only clothes, double-bed etc. were given to her. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant Smt. Sunita and the statements of two witnesses named, Om Prakash and Arun Upadhya. After recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 summon ing order dated 25-4-1994 was passed. It is this order which is being challenged. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.
(3.) THE main contention on behalf of the applicant is that the courts at Bareilly lack territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence because the criminal breach of trust, if any has taken place at Muzalfarnagar where there husband and his brothers etc. are residing. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied on 1990 ACC 315-Rameshwar Pd. Sharma v. State of U. P. , but this authority is not applicable because in the cited case the allegations in the complaint itself was that the articles were handed over by the wife to her husband and in-laws after reaching the husband's place. But in the case before me the complaint, Annexure'5 clearly recites that the articles given at the time of Lagan and at the time of marriage were given at Bareilly with the understanding that they will be handed over to Smt. Sunita when she reaches her father-in-laws' house. It cannot, therefore, be said that the entrustment was made at Muzaffarnagar.;