JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - A short question arises for adjudication in this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 Magsitrate, Bulandshahr. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged hence this application is being disposed 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 complaint has been filed u/s 406/498-A IPC (Police Station Kotwali Nagar) and is pending as case No. 857 of 1989 in the court of VII Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr. 3. As two sections indicate, sum and substance of the alleged complaint is that the amounts, presentations and valuables which Smt. Padma 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. 4. 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. 5. Sri. S.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the complainant has been beard 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 valuables 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. 6. 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. 6. This forces a look on the relevant paragraph of the complaint, translated into english which will read as under: Complainant, on reaching her in-laws place handed over her entire 'Stri Dhan' to her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, elder brother of husband and sisters of husband on the specific understanding that whenever the complainant will demand those articles for using them, they will return it to the complainant. All the other valuable ornaments 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 misappropriate 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 gifts at Bulandshahr has got nothing to do with the offence committed in Delhi. Those allegations begin with the misappropriation/embezzlement at the in-laws house in Delhi. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Magistrate's order dated 7-11-1989 summoning the applicants u/s 406/498-A IPC has to be quashed and it must be held that the Magistrate has wrongly taken cognizance of the matter in Bulandshahr and he did not have territorial jurisdiction on the facts of this case. It is hereby further directed that the Magistrate will return the complaint to the complainant in accordance with law provided u/s 201 Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. This application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.