JUDGMENT P.L. Bhaegava, J. - On September 7, 1948, Man Chand filed a complaint', u/s 498 of the Indian Penal Code, against Nanak Chand and others alleging that they had taken or enticed away his wife. The complaint was filed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar, as the offence had been committed within its jurisdiction. The woman was arrested in village Dabchara, in the district of Saharanpur, on the 24th September 1948. She was placed in charge of Anup Singh, who is the applicant in this revision. The applicant had executed a bond in which he had undertaken to produce the woman whenever called upon to do so in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar. He, however, failed to produce the woman in court. 2. When the applicant did not produce the woman in court, the complaint, which has given rise to this revision, was filed against him on December 3, 1948, in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar. In this complaint, the applicant was charged with offences' punishable under Sections 201 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged an the complaint that the police in (sic) on With the persons who had enticed away the woman, entrusted her to the applicant. who had concealed and detained her knowing that she had been enticed away. During the hearing of the complaint, an objection to the jurisdiction of the court was raised on behalf of the applicant, who pointed out that the complaint should have been filed in a competent court at Saharanpur; but the courts below overruled the objection. 3. In this revision, it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the offences complained of having been committed in the district of Saharanpur, the complaint, dated the 3rd December 1948, should have been filed in a competent court at Saharanpur. I see no force in this contention. 4. It is true that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. (Section 177, Cr. P. C) But, there are certain exceptions to this rule; and one of those exceptions is provided in Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It is true that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. (Section 177, Cr. P. C) But, there are certain exceptions to this rule; and one of those exceptions is provided in Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It lays down: When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, a charge of the firstmentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either act was done. 5. The applicant was charged with an offence u/s 201, I. P. C., because it was alleged that he knew that an offence u/s 498, I. P. C. had been committed, and that he had caused the Woman, whose production in court to give evidence of the commission of the offence was necessary, to disappear with the intention of Screaning the offender from legal punishment. The act complained of was, therefore, an offence by reason of its relation to the act of enticing away a married woman, which was an offence punishable u/s 498, I. P. C. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the alleged offence, u/s 201, I. P. C., had not been committed in relation to any other act although it had some relation to the trial for an offence u/s 498, I.P.O. The trial was taking place in respect of the (sic) which amounted to an offence; and but for that offence the disappearance of the woman would not by itself constitute any offence. The argument has, therefore, no force. 7. In regard to the offence u/s 368, I. P. C. it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the alleged concealment in respect whereof the applicant had been charged was sub-sequent to the date on which the woman had been lawfully entrusted to him, and it was independent of the offence u/s 498, I.P.C. In the complaint, as has already been shown above, it was alleged that the applicant had obtained custody of the woman in collusion with the persons, who had enticed her away; and that knowing that the woman had been abducted he was wrongfully concealing her. In view of these allegations the act of wrongful concealment is also in relation to the offence u/s 498, I. P. C, and not independent of it. 8. This is made clear by illustration (c) to Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads thus: A charge of wrongfully concealing a person known to have been kidnapped may be inquired into or tried by the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the wrongful concealing, or by the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the kidnapping, took place. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the illustration refers to cases of kidnapping; but whether it is kidnapping or abduction it makes no difference as far as jurisdiction is concerned. 10. In view of the allegation in the complaint the offences under Sections 201 and 368, I P.C., had both been commited in relation to the offence u/s 498, I P. C., which was triable at Muzaffarnagar; consequently, the offences first mentioned were also triable there in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. The complaint, dated the 3rd December 1948, was, therefore, rightly filed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar; and the objection (sic) to the jurisdiction of that court entertain the same was rightly over-ruled by the courts below. Consequently, I see no force in this rivision and reject it.