The primary consequence of the offence and the transaction between the parties took place in Gujarat, and therefore, only the court situated in Gujarat could exercise jurisdiction over the alleged criminal breach of trust, if any.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.02/2020 dated 01.01.2020 registered at Police Station North Rohini, Distt. Rohini, New Delhi for the offences punishable under sections 420/406 IPC.

2. The facts of present case, as narrated in the present petition, are that since 2009, the Petitioner, through his sole proprietorship has been undertaking the business of fresh/dehydrated onions and garlic and other perishable items export to various countries like Europe, Gulf and rest of Asia. In January 2018, the Complainant''s office, Tiger Logistics, approached the Petitioner and one Mr. Makbul Sheikh- salesman of Tiger Logistics, from his office situated at Veraval, Gujarat met with the Petitioner at the offices of the Petitioner which is also in Gujarat. During the meeting, Mr. Makbul Sheikh represented to the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 is a commission agent and can provide cost efficient and reliable services. Accordingly, on 17.01.2018, Mr. Makbul Sheikh addressed an email to the Petitioner (issued from Verawal, Gujarat) thereby informing the Petitioner regarding shipping lines available from Port Pipavav, Gujarat to Port of Naples, Italy. On 10.02.2018, the Petitioner, based on the transit time of 21 (twenty one) days promised by Tiger Logistics, entered into a sales contract with his customer Sadro SRL, an importer based in Italy. Upon such commitment, the Petitioner provided 13 booking to the Respondent No.1 for 26 containers. The Petitioner only as a goodwill gesture as a sincere exporter and upon the insistence of the representatives of Tiger Logistics paid an amount of Rs.10,76,100/- (Rupees Ten lakh Seventy Six Thousand and One Hundred Only) through cheque issued in Gujarat to the Shipping Line and such payment was collected by the representatives of Tiger Logistics only as an agent. Over the month of January, 2018, the Petitioner sent 26 (twenty six) shipments of fresh onion through the Safmarine Shipment Line as booked by Tiger Logistics. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the Petitioner, the shipment did not reach the Port of Naples within 21 (twenty one) days. On 12.03.2018, the Petitioner issued an email to the representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat expressing his concerns with regards to the delay of 14 (fourteen) days in the delivery of the shipment of fresh onions. The Petitioner issued another email dated 21.03.2018 to the representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat highlighting the delay in the delivery of the shipment. However, the Petitioner received no proper response to any of its emails. Due to the Petitioner''s growing concern over the delay in delivery of shipments and risk of loss with every passing day, the Petitioner on 16.04.2018 issued another email to the representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat expressing his concern over the delay of 24 (twenty four) days beyond the delivery time of 21 (twenty one) days. On 21.04.2020, the representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat responded to the emails issued by the Petitioner, acknowledging, and accepting the delay in the delivery of shipment. The representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat further apologized for the delay in the delivery. However, to the dismay of the Petitioner, there was complete failure on the part of the logistics service as promised by Tiger Logistics and the containers were delivered after a delay of many weeks. Due to the delay, the buyer in Italy cancelled the remaining shipment of the Petitioner which caused an enormous loss to the Petitioner. Despite the fact that the Tiger Logistics along with the Shipping Line, caused a tremendous delay in delivery the containers led to the Petitioner incurring substantial huge loss, the Respondent No.2 started demanding approx. 37 Lakhs from the Petitioner. Since there was an utter failure of shipping services