Heard. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners challenge the F.I.R. No.324 dated 11.11.2007 lodged at Margaon Police Station U/ss.120-B and 408 of I.P.C. against the petitioners along with one Ramdas s/o. Pappu Naidu, resident of Krishna Colony, Coimbatore on the ground that the complaint nowhere discloses any offence having been committed by the petitioners and secondly on the ground that even assuming that there is any offence committed as alleged, the acts complained of having alleged to have occurred at Malaysia, in the absence of compliance of Section 188 of Cr.P.C., there was no occasion for the respondent to register the F.I.R. at Margaon, Goa. The respondent on the other hand justifies the said impugned F.I.R. on the ground that the same discloses reasonable suspicion regarding the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences and hence, there is no case for interference therein. The learned Public Prosecutor has also stated that the investigating agency has also added the offence of Section 420 of I.P.C. on 11.11.2007 to the said F.I.R..

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners while challenging the impugned F.I.R. submitted that plain reading of the impugned F.I.R. discloses the allegations therein relate to the commission of the offence by the employee of the complainant Company and the same does not disclose any offence having been committed, at least of the nature of Section 120113 r/w. Section 408 of I.P.C., by the petitioners or anyone of them. According to the learned Advocate, the impugned F.I.R. does not satisfy the requirements as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and, therefore, the same should be quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned. Further drawing my attention to the Section 188 of Cr.P.C., the learned Advocate has submitted that the complaint on the face of it discloses the petitioners to be the resident of New Delhi whereas the F.I.R. has been registered at Margaon, Goa. Section 188 of Cr.P.C. empowers the investigating agency in case of the offences stated to have been committed beyond the territory of India at the place where the accused is found and not at any other place. Admittedly, the petitioner are the residents of New Delhi, since they have been alleged to have found at New Delhi and hence, the F.I.R. could not have been registered at Margaon. He has further submitted that proviso of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. requires the previous sanction of the Central Government which admittedly has not been taken by the respondent and hence, the registration of F.I.R. is bad in law.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on the other hand submitted that taking into consideration the facts alleged in the complaint which according to her prima facie reveal that after the commission of the offence by the petitioners U/s.408 r/w. Section 120-B of I.P.C., the police have registered the F.LR. against the petitioners. She has further submitted that as the complaint also discloses the elements of cheating by the petitioners, and hence, the offence U/s.420 of LP.C. has also been added subsequently to the said F.I.R..

5. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajanlal's case, if reasonable suspicion is disclosed against any person or persons involved in the matter, it would suffice the investigating agency to register the F.I.R. against such person or persons as the case may be and that is what has been done in the case in hand. After going through the complaint, the learned Advocate submitted that it apparently discloses that on necessary enquiry by the representative of the complainant Company, the involvement I of the petitioners was revealed in the matter of siphoning of materials and causing loss to the complainant in co