V.B. GUPTA, J.

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 Vishwanatha Tantri(petitioner no.3), Branch Manager of the complainant company in October/November, 2000, recommended to the complainant company, house loan of Rs.3 lacvs of petitioner no.1 and 2 as applicant and co-applicant for the purpose of construction of a house, situated at site no.153, kh. no.80/2A, H.L.No.153, Kothapur Village, Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. It was induced by petitioner no.1 that the property in question stands in his name. On the assurances given by petitioners 1 and 2 that they have good title over the property and it was a good mortgage, the head office asked the Branch Manager to get executed the relevant documents by them. Accordingly, the documents were executed and petitioner no.3 was the guarantor to the loan agreement. The complainant company from Delhi sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 3 lacs. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had to pay monthly EMI for 15 years but they did not pay the same for more than 2 years.

3. In the midst of 2003, the complainant started scrutinizing its portfolio with ICICI and to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant company, the extent of illegalities and forgeries and fraud committed by the accused, which started unearthing were beyond imagination. In the instant case, the property in question has been taken over by the Government and there exist water tank on the said land. The petitioners 1 and 2 never disclosed this fact to the complainant despite the fact that they mortgaged the same land to the complainant company and thus the present petitioners had dishonest intention from the very beginning for committing the alleged offences.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 29th July, 2006, passed by the Magistrate, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

8. 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 compla