Sou. Sangita Vivek Mane vs Vivek Jagannath Mane and Others

D.G. Deshpande, J.—Nobody is present for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State - Respondent No. 4 present.

The petitioner had filed a complaint before the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur against the respondents for offence u/s 406 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It was alleged that in her marriage certain ornaments, as described in the complaint, were given to her by her relatives and it was her Stridhan, over which none of the respondents had any right. After the marriage the petitioner went to reside with the accused at Nanded where the respondents No. 1 to 3 took custody of those ornaments. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she was ill treated and she therefore went to reside at Kolhapur. Her father lodged the complaint to DSP Kolhapur and offence was registered. According to her all the accused had come to Kolhapur in connection with the said offence registered against them when the petitioner demanded the ornaments taut the respondents refused and therefore she filed the complaint. The Magistrate ordered issue of process against the accused, which order was challenged by the respondents before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the revision was maintainable and he allowed the revision. However, he held that the Magistrate at Kolhapur had no jurisdiction because according to him entrustment has taken place at Nanded.

If the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are seen in this regard. Section 181 of Sub-section 4 of the Cr.P.C. is important. It lays down:

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 to the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.

Whether Kolhapur Courts gets jurisdiction over the matter or not can be and has to be decided with reference to the allegations in the complaint, and since in the complaint as well as in the verification statement the petitioner has repeatedly urged and stressed that the demand for the ornaments was made at Kolhapur and the refusal by the accused was at Kolhapur, the Kolhapur Court gets jurisdiction. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur that only the Nanded Court has jurisdiction because the entrustment of the ornaments took place at Nanded does not appear to be proper. The Judge has not considered the allegations in the complaint and in the verification statement. So far as issuance of process is concerned, the complaint and the verification statement is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused. Consequently, petition is required to be allowed. Hence, petition allowed. Rule made absolute. Order of the 4th Additional Sessions. Judge, Kolhapur in CRA 243/91 is set aside. It is clarified that C.J.M. Kolhapur will have jurisdiction to try the case and his order of issuance process is maintained and upheld.