The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the jurisdiction of the court in trying criminal complaints and FIRs.

( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Crpc, seeking quashing of complaint case, filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, new Delhi and consequential FIR No. 705/06 under various Sections of indian Penal Code with P. S. Sarita Vihar.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, as per the allegations made in the complaint/fir are that the petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused persons had formed an illegal syndicate with some borrowers/brokers and got the loan sanctioned from respondent No. 3 on the basis of fabricated documents and on furnishing false material information and had illegally misappropriated the money of respondent No. 3 and have made wrongful gains for themselves and have caused wrongful losses to respondent No. 3.

( 3 ) IT has been further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and other accused were required to verify and scrutinise the genuineness of borrowers and after complying with the formalities were required to recommend their cases to respondent No. 3 at its head office for approval, sanction and disbursement of loans and they were responsible for inspection of the works in progress to which the loan related, prepare technical reports, collect EMIs and sent the same to respondent No. 3 at its head office and they were basically co-ordinators between borrowers and respondent No. 3. The complaint related to the specific case of sanction and disbursement of loan in respect of properties situated in Karnataka. The complaint was filed before the Court of Magistrate and the Magistrate decided to call for an action report from the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, on the directions of the court, made a preliminary inquiry into the complaint, and submitted the report stating that no part of the alleged offences had taken place at delhi.

( 4 ) THE complainant/respondent No. 3 herein filed reply of the status report taking exception to the report pleading that the Inquiry Officer had no authority to decide the question of jurisdiction and it was the duty to register a case if complaint discloses commission of a cognisable offence.

( 5 ) VIDE order dated 29th July, 2006, the court of Magistrate accepted the plea of respondent No. 3 noting that there was commission of cognisable offence and the respondent No. 3 was not in a position to pursue the complaint by itself and thorough investigation was required to bring the truth to the surface and directed respondent No. 2 to register the case against the petitioners and other accused in the complaint and investigate the matter thoroughly and file a report.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved with the order dated 29th July, 2006, passed by the magistrate, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

( 7 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that on the basis of the complaint and the material produced by the respondent No. 3, it is apparent that none of the alleged offences took place at New Delhi and none of the accused resides in New Delhi nor any witness is at Delhi. Further, no specific averment has been made by the complainant in the complaint as to how any part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the court at New Delhi. The entire acts starting from entertaining the borrowers, receiving applications for grant of loan, verifying and scrutinising, genuineness of the same and preparation of disbursement notes etc. were only allegedly committed in the Bangalore branch of the complainant. It was only after the entire job was completed in the Bangalore Branch of respondent No. 3 that the loan was sanctioned from Delhi head office. The sanction at the head office and transfer of money to the Branch for disbursement of loan was purely an internal arrangement between the head office and the Branch and even payment of loans was also made to the borrowers in Bangalore and repayment by way of post dated cheques was also collected at Bangalore. Merely because respondent No. 3 has its