1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2011, whereby the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sanjayanagar police Station, Bangalore has directed the petitioner to file the complaint in the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime.

2. The petitioner contends that one N.J.Nagaraju S/o Jayaramaiah, residing at No.41, Telecom Employees Layout, Bhogadi, Mysore had agreed to sell immovable property bearing Sy.No.138/C measuring 1 acre 8 guntas situated at Kadugodi village, Channasandra Road, Bangalore in his favour as also in favour of Sukanya Murthy and her brother Sridhar and received a sum of Rs.2.00 crores from them towards the sale consideration. Since the price of the land has increased, he demanded additional amount for sale of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner and the other agreement, holders requested him to refund the advance amount. In response to their request, N.J.Nagaraju issued two cheques both dated 17.8.2011 for Rs.1.28 Crores and Rs.20 lakhs respectively in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, he has issued cheques in favour of the other agreement holders. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonored with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Therefore, they have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Competent Court at Bangalore. Even though summons was served on N.J.Nagaraju, he has not entered appearance in the said cases. Therefore, the Court issued non-bailable warrant against him. It is further contended that on enquiry, petitioner came to know that N.J.Nagaraju was intentionally avoiding to appear before the Court. On 28.6.2011, he filed a complaint before the 4th respondent informing him the commission of cognizable offence by N.J.Nagaraju. On receipt of the said complaint, the 4th respondent has issued the endorsement referred to above.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the complaint, the petitioner has furnished the place of residence of N.J.Nagaraju. It is further contended that the 4th respondent cannot refuse to receive the complaint on the ground that he has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. He has to record the information and forward the same to the police station having jurisdiction.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned endorsement.

5. Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for recording the first information report by the Police relating to commission of cognizable offence. The information given to a Police Officer and reduced to writing as required by this Section is known as first information. The expression ‘information’ means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or atleast information of a crime given to the Police. The principal object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view from the investigating authority is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty. The condition, which is sine qua non for recording a FIR under Section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is that there must be an information and that information must disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Where an information regarding cognizable offence is lodged at the Police Station, the officer in-charge is obliged to receive and record the same as per Sections 154(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Chapter XXVII of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1998 (Volume-II), provides for the procedure for registration of the crime committed within the jurisdiction of other Police Stations. Orders 1205, 1206 and 1207 of Chapter XXVII would clearly indicate that if a crime is committed within the jurisdiction of another Police Station within