ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant (defacto complainant). The State of Tamil Nadu is represented by Ms. Bhanu Kapoor, learned Advocate. Mr. K.N. Basha, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. 3. While issuing notice on 13.03.2023, this Court passed the following order: “Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would refer to the complaint dated 05.04.2019 (Annexure P/3) written to the Superintendent of Police to point out that the companies funds were diverted to multiple accounts operated by the accused in India. Therefore, it is argued that the quashment of the criminal proceedings on the basis that the occurrence had not taken place in India is erroneous. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. Learned counsel further submits that charge-sheet in this case was filed on 23.11.2022 and the High Court quash the FIR on 02.12.2022 without taking note of the filing of the charge-sheet since the judgment in the impugned case was reserved prior to the date of filing of the charge-sheet.” 4. Today, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant refers to Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to the place of enquiry or trial and also Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C. These provisions suggest that in the event of a charge of criminal misappropriation, the place where the property (which is the subject matter of the offence) is received and retained, will confer jurisdiction to the concerned Court. 5. The original complaint was filed in this case on 17.06.2017 before the Singapore Police Authorities. But looking at the money trail to India, the High Court in our assessment, should not have interdicted the FIR in the Crime No. 18/2021. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the FIR stands restored and should be taken to its logical conclusion. 6. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. 7. The above order will not foreclose the option of the accused to challenge the charge-sheet, if so advised. 8. Pending applications stand disposed of.