The petitioner has approached this Court seeking "to declare that the cognizance taken on the criminal complaint evidenced by Ext. P4 and the order of summons issued thereon evidenced by Ext. P5 and the steps taken in furtherance thereof are illegal, inoperative and void." The petitioner also seek for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any steps in furtherance of the criminal complaint under Crime No. 3892/96 pending before the second respondent. The second respondent is the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Vadodara, Gujarat State, Ext. P4 is the copy of a criminal complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent Court and Ext. P5 is the summons issued by the second respondent to the petitioner with regard to the trial of Ext. P. 4.

2. The petitioner submits that the first respondent has not significantly stated anywhere in Ext. P4 complaint that the offence alleged had been committed by the petitioner within the local jurisdiction of the second respondent Court. So the second respondent in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the petitioner has violated the mandatory provisions contained in S. 177 and S. 181(4