R.P.Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the summoning order dated 30-7-1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Criminal Complaint No. 1245 of .1986-Smt. Renu Srivastava v. Dr. Anoop Kumar and others under section 406 IPC.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this revision on the ground that the court at Ghaziabad, has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Under section 181 (4) an 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 sub ect of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons. THE marriage of Smt. Renu Srivastava was solemnised with Dr. Anoop Kumar at Ghaziabad and it was at Ghaziabad that the articles were given to Smt. Renu Srivastava and were received by the accused on behalf of the complainant. THE accused are the husband of Smt. Renu Srivastava, father and grand father of her husband and aunt (Buwa) of Dr. Anoop Kumar. As far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel lor the applicant. THE court at Ghaziahad has very much jurisdiction to try this case. The learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that only the husband i.e. Dr. Anoop Kumar received the articles on behalf of Smt. Renu Srivastava, the applicant. Km. Suraj Srivastava, who is aunt (Buwa) of Dr. Anoop Kumar, can not be said by any stretch of imagination, to have received the articles on behalf of Dr. Anoop Kumar or on behalf of Smt. Renu Srivastava, I have perused the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and it is apparent from the order that Km. Suraj Srivastava, the present applicant, did attend the marriage and that she received the articles.
(3.) I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order of summoning of the applicant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad, warranting interference in this criminal revision. Even if Km. Suraj Srivastava did not receive any of the articles and she successfully proves the same she will be acquitted or discharged, as the case may be, by the Magistrate himself.;