B. P. SINGH, J. Hansraj Chaudhary, the applicant No. 1, is the husband of Smt. Sarita, the opposite party. The applicants Prem Raj and Smt. Sheela are the brother and sister-in-law of the applicant, Hansraj Chaudhary, respectively. Hansraj Chaudhary was married with Smt. Sarita on 2-5-1989 at Jhansi After sometime the relations between the couple became strained and a complaint under Section 406, 498-A, 420/34, I. P. C. was filed by Smt. Sarita against Hansraj Chaudhary, Prem Raj and Smt. Shila Devi. The case was registered as Complaint Case No. 49 of 1991 in the court of C. J. M. , Jhansi. The allegations in the complaint were that the accused had treated the com plainant with cruelty and had kept and mis- appropriated the valuables which belong to the complainant because these valuables were given to her at the time of marriage by her parents and other relations. 2. The C. J. M. recorded the stated of Smt. Sarita on 3-5-1991 and the statements of Ram Sewak Bairagi and Bhagwan Das under Section 202. Cr. P. C. 3. After going through the complaint and the statements of the com plainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate summoned at all the three accused persons for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, I. P. C. Summons were issued to all the three accused fixing 19-10-91. It appears that a telegram was received in the court of C. J. M. , Jhansi on 30-12-91 from the applicant, Prem Raj. Consequently, a bailable warrant was issued against Prem Raj fixing 24-1-92 in the case. As the summons against remaining two persons were not served, orders to issue fresh summons were also passed. 4. It is against these two orders dated 11-9-91 and 23-12-91 that the applicants have come in revision. 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged at the admis sion stage and I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not disputed that the marriage took place at Jhansi on 2-5- 1989. The complaint allegations as well as the statements of the witnesses show that while the complainant went to live with Hansraj Chaudhary at Bhopal, she was treated with cruelty by the accused persons and the property i. e. T. V. Set, bed, Fridge and ornaments etc. It is not disputed that the marriage took place at Jhansi on 2-5- 1989. The complaint allegations as well as the statements of the witnesses show that while the complainant went to live with Hansraj Chaudhary at Bhopal, she was treated with cruelty by the accused persons and the property i. e. T. V. Set, bed, Fridge and ornaments etc. were not returned by the opposite parties although these articles belonged to the complainant. 6. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the learned Magistrate had basis to summon these applicants- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406, I. P. C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R. K. Shangloo, has argued that the criminal courts at Jhansi had no jurisdiction to try the offences in question. On the other hand the contention of the learned counsel for the wife, Sri S. S. Rathor, is that the criminal courts at Jhansi have jurisdiction to try the case in question. 8. Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in enquiry and trials. Under Section 177 of the Code it is laid down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The word "ordinarily" in Section 177 has been used intentionally and indicates that the provisions of this section are to be read subject to the provisions contained in the succeeding sections i. e. Sections 178 to 189. Section 181 (4) of the Code lays down that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was commit ted or any part of the property which is the sabject-matter of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons. Thus, it is obvious that an offence of criminal breach of trust is triable by a court within whose jurisdiction the property, which was the subject-matter of the offence, was to be returned. For the purposes of deter mining the jurisdiction of the criminal court only the allegations in the com plaint and the evidence of any other admitted fact are to be taken into account. For the purposes of deter mining the jurisdiction of the criminal court only the allegations in the com plaint and the evidence of any other admitted fact are to be taken into account. In the present case the case of the complainant is that the articles, in respect of which the complaint has been filed, were handed over to the applicant No. 1 at Jhansi and all the three applicants have retained the same in Madhya Pradesh. It is one of the basic principles of law that the property, which is given in the entrustment, is liable to be returned at the place at which it was given in entrustment. This there can be no dispute that the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. was triable at Jhansi and the C. J. M. , Jhansi has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint so far as it relates to the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. 9. Coming to the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. it may be noted here that in the entire complaint whatever acts of cruelty are attributed to the accused persons were committed in Madhya Pradesh. Section 498-A of the I. P. C. provides that whoever be the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprison ment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. Cruelty has been defined in this section and the allegations made in the complaint do make out a case that the wife was treated with cruelty. But all these acts of cruelty are said to have taken place in Madhya Pradesh. It is not open to a wife to file a complaint under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. at place A whereas the acts of cruelty against her were committed at place B. Thus C. J. M. , Jhansi has no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 498-A of I. P. C. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also filed a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition No. 154 of 1992 - Smt. Sarita v. Hansraj. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also filed a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition No. 154 of 1992 - Smt. Sarita v. Hansraj. This copy of the order has no relevance for the pur poses of the present case because it relates to some civil case which has been filed by the husband against the wife in Madhya Pradesh Court. 11. In this view of the matter the application for revision is partly allowed. The summoning order dated 11-9-91 is set aside so far as it relates to the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. The complaint in question shall be tried in the court of C. J. M. , Jhansi so far as it relates to the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. No interference is called for in the order dated 23-12-91. 12. The revision application is finally disposed of. Revision disposed of. .