Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999):

The Supreme Court clarified that for an offence like criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), the court where the demand for the entrusted property was made and refused would have territorial jurisdiction, even if the initial entrustment or misappropriation occurred elsewhere. This highlights that jurisdiction can arise where any part of the offence is committed or where consequences giving rise to the offence unfold.

Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004):

The Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle of Section 177 CrPC, holding that the place where the consequences of an act ensue is not necessarily the place where the offence was committed, unless such consequence is an ingredient of the offence itself. It emphasized that the primary rule is for inquiry and trial to be held where the offence was actually committed.