JUDGMENT Arun Chandra Upadhyay, J. 1. The accused/petitioners has challenged the impugned order dated 5.4.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in Complaint Case No. 865/2011, whereby cognizance of offence under Section 403 /34 IPC was taken by the learned trial Court. According to the accused/petitioners since the offence alleged under Section 403 IPC was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Guwahati, the trial court had no legal authority to issue process and proceed with the trial of the case. The facts leading to tiling of this petition may be stated in brief as follows: The marriage between the accused-petitioner No. 1 and complainant-wife (respondent No. 2) was solemnized socially on 25.6.2003, followed by marriage agreement, executed before the Sub Registrar, Rangia, District Kamrup, Assam. Subsequently, formal marriage was solemnized according to Islamic Sariyat on 28.5.2008. At the time of the marriage, 'Mahr' amount was fixed at Rs. 1,00,101/-. The complainant respondent stated that after the marriage, complainant stayed at her parents house till 28.5.2008, as the accused had no permanent income of his own and even at the time of getting the job in the jail Department, the complainant-wife had to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the accused petitioner. 2. When the accused-petitioner got a permanent job in the jail department at Tezpur complainant-wife came to live with him at Sealmari, to lead a happy conjugal life. During subsequent period, the accused lived at his work place, whereas me complainant wife had to live with the parents of the accused petitioner. 3. However, subsequently, conjugal relationship between them started to deteriorate and as a sequel to that the accused-petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 made unlawful demand for dowry. The accused-petitioner No. 1 demanded Rs. 50,000/- along with modern furniture etc. However, when the complainant wife showed her inability to meet the demand, she was mentally tortured and was kept confined inside the house by the accused-petitioner. However, at the interference of the local people and the neighbouring residents, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties and the accused persons promised not to torture the complainant-wife in future. 4. Unfortunately, after sometime the accused petitioner started making fresh demands for payment of Rs. 50,000/- and, for nonpayment of such amount, the complainant-wife was mercilessly tortured both physically and sexually. Finally, the complainant-wife was driven out from the matrimonial home. 4. Unfortunately, after sometime the accused petitioner started making fresh demands for payment of Rs. 50,000/- and, for nonpayment of such amount, the complainant-wife was mercilessly tortured both physically and sexually. Finally, the complainant-wife was driven out from the matrimonial home. The complainant-wife having no alternative came to reside with her brother at Guwahati. She filed an application in the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Guwahati, under Section 125 CrPC, seeking monthly maintenance allowances from her husband i.e. the accused-petitioner. 5. The complainant-wife stated that she had many articles, which were given to her at the time of marriage, but those articles were kept in the custody of the accused No. 1 at the matrimonial home. When complainant-wife came to know that the accused petitioners started mis-using and damaging the articles belonging to her, she apprehended that the articles may be mis-appropriated by the accused petitioner and thus wanted to bring back those articles from the possession and custody of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the complaint-wife along with her brother Samsul Haque came to visit the residence of accused petitioners and requested them to give back the articles belonging to the complainant-wife. But the accused petitioners refused to give back the articles to the complainant wife, rather, the accused petitioners threatened them with dire consequence and asked not to visit their residence again with such proposal. Thus, having no alternative, the complainant-wife lodged the complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati, alleging commission of offence of mis-appropriation of her property by the accused petitioners. The learned trial Court took cognizance of offence under Section 403 IPC by passing the following impugned order on 5.4.2011- Complainant is present. One witness is examined under Section 202 CrPC and his statement is recorded. On perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and the witness the court finds that the alleged offence under Section 498A IPC were committed outside the jurisdiction of the court. As such no cognizance could be taken of the said alleged offence. However the statement and (sic) complaint, particularly paragraph 7 of the complaint reveals prima facie materials of offence under Section 403 /34 IPC against the accused persons in view of Section 181(4) CrPC. Hence cognizance is taken of the aforesaid offence. Issue summons to the accused persons. Complainant shall take steps................ 6. Mr. However the statement and (sic) complaint, particularly paragraph 7 of the complaint reveals prima facie materials of offence under Section 403 /34 IPC against the accused persons in view of Section 181(4) CrPC. Hence cognizance is taken of the aforesaid offence. Issue summons to the accused persons. Complainant shall take steps................ 6. Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submitted that the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant and the witness clearly reveal that parties are permanent residents of the district of Darrang and the marriage of the complainant was solemnized under Sipajhar Police Station and conjugal life was spent by them under Sipajhar Police Station and Tezpur Police Station and the complainant, no where stated that any occurrence had taken place under the jurisdiction of the Kamrup district. According to the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, in view of the provision of Section 177 CrPC, the cognizance of the offence taken against the accused petitioner by the Court at Kamrup, being beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that if no cognizance could be taken for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, for offence being committed outside the jurisdiction of the court, there was no logic in taking cognizance of offence under Section 403 /34 IPC against the accused petitioners in terms of the provision of Section 181 (4) CrPC. 8. Section 181(4) of the CrPC provides that 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 of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. 9. According to the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner the complainant-wife, since 9.7.2011 hade been staying with her brother and parents at Salikajhar and not at Guwahati and hence no article was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person at any place under the jurisdiction of the court of learned Sri N.K. Das at Kamrup. But on perusal of the complaint case, it appears that the complainant-wife after having been driven away by the petitioner-husband was residing with her brother in Guwahati. But on perusal of the complaint case, it appears that the complainant-wife after having been driven away by the petitioner-husband was residing with her brother in Guwahati. The complainant-wife had to face the reality of life. Apparently no residence was provided to the complainant-wife by the petitioner-husband to enable her to stay within the jurisdiction of the court outside Guwahati. Thus, she came to reside at Guwahati with her brother after having been driven out and this situation cannot be disputed. As stated by the complainant-wife she made a demand for return of the articles, while she was staying with her brother at Guwahati. 10. Apparently, the complainant-wife, being in distress after having been driven out by her husband, having no employment or advocation to support her had to stay with her brother at Guwahati. Obviously her stay with her brother at Guwahati is not by choice, but on compulsion. Thus the articles belonging to the complainant-wife were to be returned at Guwahati i.e. at her place of stay with her brother. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that some cases had been filed by the complainant-wife at Sipajhar and Tezpur, but no such documents relating to filing of different cases alleging commission of offence under Section 403 IPC had been placed on record to attract the provisions of Section 210 CrPC. 12. Section 210(1) of the CrPC provides that during the pendency of a complaint case, if it is made to appear that an investigation by the police is under progress, in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of the enquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. Section 210(2) provides that if a report is made by the Investigating Police Officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall enquire into or try both the cases together. The object underlying section 210 CrPC is that when the offence in the complaint case and the police case are identical, they should be tried together to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The object underlying section 210 CrPC is that when the offence in the complaint case and the police case are identical, they should be tried together to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. Such situation do not seem to have arisen in the instant case to attract the provision of section 210 CrPC. 13. Learned counsel for the complainant-wife on the other hand by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 12 SCC 434 (Kushal Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Mala Gupta) submitted that when the complaint itself makes out a case that a part of the cause of action has arisen when the petitioner is staying with her brother at Guwahati, there is no question of the Court at Guwahati not having jurisdiction to try the case. 14. As a matter of fact, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate, apart from applying its mind to the contents of the petition for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way, is also required to see, whether bare perusal of the complaint attracts jurisdiction of the Court or not. In this regard, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Kushal Kumar Gupta & Anr. (supra), reads as follows- 7. In the ultimate analysis, what emerges from the submissions of the parties is that during the trial the petitioners will have to disprove the complainant's case that part of the cause of action arose in Patiala where the dowry articles were to be returned to the complainant. As it stands, the complaint does indicate that a part of the cause of action arose in Patiala, thus attracting the provisions of Section 181 (4) CrPC. The High Court has quite rightly observed that on a bare perusal of the complaint, the Patiala Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are not of much help to the petitioners' case. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 11 SCC 301 (Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) held that in case of continuous offence committed in more local areas then one offence is triable by Court having jurisdiction, over any of such local area. 8. Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "the Code") deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177-179 are relevant which are as follows- 177. 8. Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "the Code") deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177-179 are relevant which are as follows- 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. ........................ 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues - When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 16. From the above provisions, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court, within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, when it is uncertain, in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area, and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local area, and takes place in different local areas, as per Section 178, the court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 of CrPC makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 17. Section 179 of CrPC makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 17. A perusal of the entire complaint, clearly shows that there was ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and his family members at the matrimonial home and their actions and threat compelled complainant-wife to take shelter with her brother at Guwahati. After having taken shelter with her brother at Guwahati complainant-wife had gone to her husband and in-laws and made demand for return of her property belonging to her. Since she was staying with her brother at Guwahati, the accused petitioners were supposed to return the property to the complainant-wife which they refused to do. 18. Section 403 IPC provides the extent of punishment, for dishonest misappropriation of property, wherein it has been laid that whoever dishonestly misappropriate or converts to his own use any movable property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 19. Criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation or non-returning stridhan is a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 472, CrPC and a complaint filed by a deserted wife cannot be thrown away as being filed at a place where she is taking shelter after having been driven out by the in-laws. The offence of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation is a continuing offence. When the wife entrusts her stridhan property to her husband and the husband dishonestly refuses to return the same or misappropriates, he commits a criminal offence. Every demand for return of stridhan followed by refusal or non-compliance with the demand would give rise to a fresh cause of action. 20. For trial of dishonest misappropriation of property or criminal breach of trust, three distinct venues are prescribed by Section 181(4) CrPC, 1973, which are as follows: 181(4). Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within shoes local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. 21. Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within shoes local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. 21. Thus the offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust can be tried at three places, namely, (i) at the place where the property was received, (ii) at the place where the property was retained by the accused or (iii) at the place where the property in question which is the subject of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for. Thus, the Court at the aforesaid places are fully competent to try the case. 22. In view of Section 179 CrPC, 1973, when an act is an offence by reasons of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. The word "consequence" in Section 179 does not include all the possible results of an act, but is restricted in its scope to certain specified results; those are the results specified in the provision of the law making the act an offence. The offence of criminal breach of trust is complete with the act of conversion and the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. That intention can only be formed or at least can only be proved to have been formed at the place where the conversion takes place. For purposes of Section 179 it is immaterial where the wrongful loss actually takes place, and indeed whether any such loss actually does take place or not. 23. The offence of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction any of the following five facts took place, namely,- i) Any part of the property forming the subject matter of the offence was received by the accused, or ii) was retained by him; or iii)was required to be returned by him; or iv) was required to be accounted for by him; or v) the offence was committed. 24. 24. From the above it appears that the offence may also be tried either at the place, where the property was required to be returned by the accused or at the place where it was required to be accounted for by him. 25. A bare perusal of the complaint itself shows that a part of cause of action arose in Guwahati, where the articles were to be returned to the complainant, which gave rise to a cause of action in Guwahati. 26. In careful consideration of the entire aspect of the matter, it appears that the criminal petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Send back the lower court records immediately with a copy of this order. Learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. Petition dismissed