Judgment : Heard. A novel advocacy is being prostrated before me in seeking the admission of this case while challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore in Crl.M.P. No. 2966 of 1995, dated 12. 1996 for no relief asked for by the petitioner before the court below. In fact a petition was filed as evidenced from the true copy in the typed set of papers with the following contention: “Petition filed on behalf of the 1st accused. The 1st accused begs to submit that no part of the offence is alleged to have taken place within the jurisdiction before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction. Advocate for 1st accused.” The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II, attached to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent herein in which it was contended inter alia that the petitioner to qualify himself as a typist wanted to appear in the examination conducted by the Board of Technical Education, Madras. The petitioner and the other accused Tejoram had conspired together to cheat the Board of Technical Education by impersonation and decided that Tejoram should write the examination on behalf of the petitioner and affixing the photograph of Tejoram, the said Tejoram signed as Nagarajan in the said application and that they have chosen E.V.R. Nagammaiyar Government Higher Secondary School, Vellore as Centre and filled up the application as such. The intention of the accused was to write the examination at the above centre at Vellore and that though he has not appeared for the examination, hall ticket was issued to the accused mentioning the centre as E.V.R. Nagammaiyar Government Higher Secondary School, Vellore, and that therefore, the District Crime Branch police at Vellore have got jurisdiction to investigate the case and as such the Judicial Magistrate Court at Vellore has also got jurisdiction to try the case. On hearing both sides, the learned trial Magistrate has observed the following: “The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that this Court has no jurisdiction at all to try this case, as not part of the offence has taken place within the limits of this Court. On hearing both sides, the learned trial Magistrate has observed the following: “The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that this Court has no jurisdiction at all to try this case, as not part of the offence has taken place within the limits of this Court. The learned A.P.P. confronted by arguing that the intention of the accused was to write the examination at Vellore and the hall ticket was issued to the accused mentioning the centre as E.V.R. Nagammaiyar Government Higher Secondary School, Vellore, though they have not appeared for the examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused cited the following decisions in support of his contention to return the charge sheet. In Sowbagiammal v. Rapheel, 1954 M.W.N. (Crl.) 190, wherein it is held:”Where the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case, the proper course is to return the complaint under Sec.201, Crl.P.C. In the case cited the complaint was one instituted otherwise than on police report whereas in the instant case the complaint is upon a police report of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore took cognizance originally and subsequently made over to this Court for disposal. The petitioner cannot rely upon the decision reported in 1954 M.W.N. (Crl.) 190, which pertains to a complaint instituted otherwise than in police report. In Abhay Lalan v. Yogendra Madhavlal, 1981 Crl.L.J. 1667. It is held that to secure the ends of justice interference can be made by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. where the question of jurisdiction is involved. In the light of this decision this Court is of opinion that if as a matter of fact this Court has got jurisdiction to try the complaint and if the Court proceeds with the complaint it will be an abuse of the process of Law. Unfortunately this decision cited by the petitioner’s counsel is against them. In Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai, (1965) 2 Crl.L.J. 777, it is held that the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. This decision only emphasizes the cardinal principle that offences are to be tried by the court within whose jurisdiction any part of the offence is committed. The decision however has no significance to decide the issue whether this Court is competent to return the complaint after taking cognizance of it. This decision only emphasizes the cardinal principle that offences are to be tried by the court within whose jurisdiction any part of the offence is committed. The decision however has no significance to decide the issue whether this Court is competent to return the complaint after taking cognizance of it. Yet another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner/accused is the one reported in 1993 L.W. (Crl.) 395. In this case the petitioner invoked the inherent powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. seeking an order to split up and transfer the case. Accordingly, the High Court also in exercising the inherent powers directed the lower court to split up the case and ordered the lower court to transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction. In the light of the facts stated supra, this petition deserves dismissal as there is no provision embodied in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering this Court to return the charge sheet which has already taken cognizance by a court. However, this Court has not gone into the question of jurisdiction at this stage, and the issue that whether the petition seeking return of chargesheet is maintainable or not alone is decided. In the result, this Court holds that it is not empowered to return the charge sheet at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed." 2. It have extracted the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate only to the limited purpose of showing how the learned Judicial Magistrate has understood the point exactly involved for the decision of the case and for which how she has dealt with and considered the matter in accordance with law for the purpose of rendering justice to the party and to provide a legal redressal to the grievance. To say more precisely with great constraint, the impugned order is totally bereft of the actual point projected before the court below with no consideration or discussion of any legal matters whatsoever concerned. In fact it is noticed that no prayer for returning the charge sheet was made on behalf of the accused in the petition. It is under the circumstances, the memo or the petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been rejected in toto for its very maintainability. No provision of law has been quoted nor any ground with any prayer was given in the petition. It is under the circumstances, the memo or the petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been rejected in toto for its very maintainability. No provision of law has been quoted nor any ground with any prayer was given in the petition. It is under these circumstances, it is not known for what relief the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed the counter and the learned Magistrate has exhausted her valuable time in passing the impugned order by quoting the case laws referred to above. If the matter is viewed in this angle, it is apparent that the learned trial Magistrate has been forced to proceed with the passing of the impugned order on the basis of mere imaginary conjectures and not on the basis of any relevant ground duly projected under the due process of law which ought to have been avoided by the learned Magistrate at least from hitherto onwards. 3. Coming to the facts of the case regarding the relief asked for by and on behalf of the first accused by the Bar in this revision, I am at every difficulty to accept this grievance that both the accused in this case belongs to Gudur and having their cites in the State of Andhra Pradesh they applied to the Director of Technical Education seeking permission to appear in the typewriting examination conducted by them and it was the authorities concerned who allotted the right place of the examination at Vellore and that therefore no overt act is said to have been committed by them at the place of Vellore for the court below to take cognizance of the offence. It was brought to my notice by learned Government Advocate that a complaint received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Gudur against the alleged nefarious activities of both the accused has been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate at Vellore for proper action and that accordingly the respondent police has been directed to register the case by the learned Magistrate under Sec.201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that consequently a case was registered by the District Crime Branch Police for the offences under Secs.468,471,467 and 420, Indian Penal code. Thus investigated and consequently having regard to the factum of both the accused to appear in the examination at Vellore, a centre provided by the Director of Technical Examination, Madras, they were issued the Hall Tickets and before the commission of the offence the matter was thus brought to the knowledge of the authority and the accused were booked under the law. Keeping in view Secs.177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the jurisdiction vested with the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr.Karthic, the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner. The second and most important ground to dissuade the Bar for the petitioner is that the petition filed before the court below does not indicate any grievance or relief and that therefore, the whole legal exercise remonstrated by the court below as well as before me becomes a futile one and unnecessary, and that in the context of the said circumstances, the whole matter viz., the grievance of the revision petitioner has become otiose. It is, thus, after having considered the whole depth of the case on the materials placed before me in the context of the rival contentions, I am not able to find the semblance of merits in this revision for being admitted. 4. In the result, for all the reasonings given above, the revision fails, and accordingly it is dismissed even at this admission stage.