Territorial jurisdiction in wrongful withholding cases lies where retention occurs, not where accounts are maintained; Bombay process quashed.

Territorial jurisdiction for wrongful withholding of property lay where the retention occurred, namely Jamshedpur, because the alleged offence was complete there. Section 181(4) CrPC could not be stretched to found jurisdiction in Bombay merely because the company kept its office and accounts there, and section 179 CrPC was inapplicable because any loss or inconvenience in Bombay was only consequential. A plea under section 462 CrPC also failed since the complaint had been instituted in a court lacking jurisdiction from the outset. The criminal process issued in Bombay was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bombay criminal court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act and section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the footing that the company had its registered office and accounts in Bombay, and whether the process issued in such court was liable to be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The complaint itself showed that the alleged wrongful withholding of the residential quarters occurred at Jamshedpur, where the property was retained and where the alleged offence was complete. Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies where the property is required by law or contract to be returned or accounted for in a particular local area and where there is no evidence of the offence other than failure to return or account for the property. That provision could not be stretched to create jurisdiction in Bombay merely because the company maintained its office and accounts there. Nor could section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked, because any alleged loss or consequential inconvenience in Bombay was not itself part of the offence charged. The plea based on section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also rejected, since the complaint was instituted in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction from the outset and continuance of the proceeding was an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The Bombay court had no territorial jurisdiction over the complaint, and the process issued there was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The criminal process initiated in Bombay was quashed because the alleged offence arose at Jamshedpur and the attempt to found jurisdiction in Bombay was legally untenable.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences of wrongful withholding or retention of property, territorial jurisdiction lies where the retention occurs, and sections 179 and 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to create jurisdiction in a place where only accounting arrangements or consequential loss are said to exist.

---