Judgment 1. This application is directed against order dated 13.06.2008 ordering issuance of process in Criminal Case No. 697/2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi against the present applicant. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Non applicant no.1 herein filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi being Criminal Case No. 697/2008 contending therein that the complainant is a household lady and since year 2003 she was serving in Railway Department at Gondia, dist. Gondia and for that reason she was residing at Gondia. 3. The applicant, who is original accused no.2, is having two storied houses by name “Pandey Bhawan” at Veltori, near Manohar Paper Mart, Gondia. In the said house, on the first floor, the complainant was residing as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 750/- and she was residing there along with household articles. 4. In the month of June-July-2005, as the complainant was suffering from severe headache, she has taken leave from the Railway Department and went to reside at her parent’s house at Arvi, dist. Wardha and while going to reside at Arvi, she has kept all the articles, stated in the list, in the tenanted house at Gondia, which was locked from outside. The present applicant used to come down to Arvi for collecting rent or complainant used to send the rent by Demand Draft. On 28.10.2007, the complainant, along with her brother Manish Verma, having gone to the tenanted premises at Gondia for domestic purposes, it was seen that the lock was removed and there was some other tenant residing. Therefore, the complainant contacted accused and the accused told the complainant that all the articles, as shown in the list, are in his custody and are kept with him with utmost care and the same can be taken by her within 1 or 2 days. Accordingly, when the complainant, along with her brother Manish, went to the house of accused on 04.11.2007 for taking the articles as shown in the list, the accused refused to give the said articles and has taken illegally custody of the articles as shown in the list and has misappropriated the articles as mentioned in the list worth Rs. 1,50,000/- and as such the complainant has lodged report with Police Station, Gondia. 1,50,000/- and as such the complainant has lodged report with Police Station, Gondia. However, as the Police having cordial relation with the accused, Police had not taken any action and has only made investigation in casual manner. 5. According to the complainant, in the investigation made in casual manner by Police, the accused have filed one false document, Stamp Paper of Rs. 100/- styled as “Apsi Samzouta” containing false signature of the complainant and her brother Manish Verma and Police have given one copy of the same to the complainant. The said false document, as stated therein, was prepared on 15.03.2007 at Arvi. That Stamp Paper was purchased at Arvi and was sought to have been executed at Arvi. The said compromise document does not bear the original signatures of complainant or her brother Manish Verma but bears their false signature. The said document as used by the accused for getting her tenanted house vacated and misappropriating her articles as mentioned in the list and as such prepared a bogus document by making false signatures of the complainant and her brother deliberately. 6. As per say of the accused, based upon a document, which was prepared at Arvi, accused break open lock of the complainant and taken illegally custody of her articles as shown in list and have misappropriated the same. It is further the contention of the complainant in the complaint that the complainant tried to lodge written report with Arvi Police Station on 12.02.2008 but the Police refused to accept the same and as such the said report was sent by Registered Post. However, Arvi Police has not taken any legal action in the matter. The complainant also sent a notice by registered post through her Advocate to accused nos.1 and 2 on 13.03.2008, demanding articles of the list, however, the accused had sent false reply on 24.04.2008. Therefore, the original complainant filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi contending that the applicant herein committed serious offence under Sections 403, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also committed offence under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, by his order dated 13.06.2008 issued process for the offence punishable under Sections 465/34, 468/34, 471/34, 403/34, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, by his order dated 13.06.2008 issued process for the offence punishable under Sections 465/34, 468/34, 471/34, 403/34, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused namely Omprakash Pandey. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that even according to the complainant, the offence of criminal misappropriation and of criminal breach of trust has been committed at Gondia and as such trial Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by non applicant. It is further submitted that order issuing summons to the accused in the complaint case filed by non applicant for an offence punishable under Section 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is against the provisions of Section 181 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that as per provisions of Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 of was committed or any part of property, which is subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person and as such the Court at Arvi is having no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that even under the provisions of Section 182 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint can be tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction the property was delivered or was received by the person. It is further submitted that under Section 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code same can be tried only by the Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done. In the present case, the misappropriation is alleged to have been committed at Gondia and as such the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi district Wardha has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the order issuing process by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction and on this ground alone order of issuance of process is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the order issuing process by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction and on this ground alone order of issuance of process is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for non applicant no.1 submitted that the Magistrate has rightly invoked provisions of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal procedure and process has been rightly issued. Learned counsel invited my attention to the provisions of Section 200 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel would submit that acts of removing the lock of the tenanted premises at Gondia, taking out articles and giving said tenement to another tenant, were done in pursuance to the preparation of forged document, which was purchased at Arvi. The said document was also prepared at Arvi and the subsequent acts had taken place at Gondia. Those acts were in pursuant to preparation of the forged document and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The sum and substance of the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant/non applicant no.1 is that in view of forged document, which was purchased and prepared at Arvi, the complaint is rightly entertained by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi and no interference is called for in the order of issuance of process. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and non applicant at length. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate at Arvi has invoked provisions of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while issuing process. The provisions of Section 220 (1) to (3) are as under:- “220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. The provisions of Section 220 (1) to (3) are as under:- “220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them any be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. On careful reading of the provisions of Section 220, it appears that the Court can conduct trial for more than one offences, if acts are committed in the series as to for same transaction and committed by same person, the person can be charged and tried as one trial for several such offences. 10. In the present case, on plain reading of complaint and other material brought on record, it appears that so far as allegations in the complaint regarding forged document is concerned, it appears that the same can be tried by Magistrate at Arvi since the Stamp Paper, which is used for alleged forged document is purchased at Arvi. So far as the alleged offence taken place at Gondia i.e. opening the tenanted premises by accused/landlord by breaking lock and collecting the articles of the complainant and giving said premises on rent to some other person is concerned, the said offence has taken place at Gondia. Therefore, so far as offence, which is committed at Gondia is concerned, the Magistrate at Arvi will have no jurisdiction to try the said offence. Therefore, so far as offence, which is committed at Gondia is concerned, the Magistrate at Arvi will have no jurisdiction to try the said offence. Hence, the offence, which has taken place at Arvi can be tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi and to that extent order of issuance of process passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi cannot be faulted with. So far as alleged offence committed by the applicant at Gondia is concerned, the same cannot be tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi. To that extent the order issuing process is not sustainable and the same is required to be quashed and set aside 11. It is possible to invoke provisions of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and try the offence, which are committed in series arising out of one transaction by one person, but for trying such offences, permission of competent Court is required. In the instant case, according to the complainant, offence has been committed at Arvi. Hence, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi has jurisdiction only to try offence committed at Arvi unless the same is permitted by competent Court to try different offence, i.e. the offence committed at Arvi and offence committed at Gondia. In the absence of such permission by competent Court i.e. District Court or the High Court, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the Magistrate to try the offence together as is being done by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi by issuing process for the offence committed at Arvi as well as alleged offence committed at Gondia by the present applicant. 12. In the light of above discussion, the order of issuance of process, so far as the alleged offence committed at Gondia is concerned, is quashed and set aside. It is made clear that so far as offence under Section 403 and 406 is concerned, competent Court at Gondia may have jurisdiction to try the same. Therefore, the application is allowed to the extent that order issuing process by Magistrate under Section 403, 406 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is quashed and set aside. Rest of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, to the extent it relates to offence committed at Arvi, the same is maintained. Rule is made partly absolute. The application is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.