S.181(4) Cr.P.C holds the key to the jurisdiction issue accosting the Sushant Case.

It reads as below:-

"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".

It is the tail-end portion which states , jurisdiction would lie within the territory where (the misappropriated) property,..............' or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person'.

In order to attract the above proviso, it has to be argued that the accused persons are alleged to have committed acts of misappropriation, including illegal fund transfer aggregating 15-17 Crores of rupees besides removing vital documents hearing property rights. These are liable to be returned or accounted for. Obvious question corollary thereto would be, 'accountable or returnable to whom and where'? Answer is obvious. To the legal heirs or successors recognised by the law. Which would drag the jurisdiction to Patna where the bereaved family of the deceased victim of the offence resides!

Million dollar question never the less outstands whether this legal angle is or isn't within the cognizance of the too many legal wizards cooking the broth who have so far dwelt only on a flimsy line, that Rhea Chakravarti had designedly distanced Sushant from the family with criminal conspiracy to pursue the whole game plan. 

Well, you can't build a massive edifice on a foundation which may not endure small load of a cottage!