B. S. CHAUHAN, J. This writ petition has been filed for restraining the Delhi Police from investigating the matter in pursuance of the F. I. R. in Case Crime No. Nil of 2003, under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. , registered at Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad, U. P. 2. The facts as alleged in the petition and are revealed by the documents annexured by the petitioner himself, remain that on 25-5-2003 a report of gumsudgi was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by the wife of deceased Sanjay Gupta, Smt. Ritu Gupta, wherein it was mentioned that in the evening of 25-5-2003 her husband Sanjay Gupta, had gone alongwith two persons, namely, Aman Bhardwaj and Taiyab (petitioner), who were known to him, in a Maruti Car of white colour, bearing No. D L 3 CT 4150. While leaving the house, the deceased told his mother that he would come back soon. When he did not return, the deceaseds wife phoned on his mobile at about mid night. Deceased told her that he was in NOIDA and would return home soon. But he did not come back. In view of the information the report of missing of Sanjay Gupta was registered on 25-5-2003. The dead body of the deceased was found within territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad and an F. I. R. was lodged at the said Police Station under Section 302 read with Section 201 I. P. C. by deceaseds brother giving all those details which had been given by deceaseds wife at Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi earlier alleging that Taiyab and co-accused Aman Bharadwaj had committed the said murder. The Delhi Police, respondent No. 3, started the investigation. Hence this petition. 3. Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as the dead body of said Sanjay Gupta was found within the territorial jurisdiction of P. S. Masoori, District Ghaziabad, the said Police Station alone has a competence to investigate the crime, hence investigation being carried out by the respondent No. 3 is without competence, and therefore, respondent No. 3 be restrained from investigating the matter. 4. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that petitioner and Aman Bharadwaj had gone to the house of the deceased, and taken him from there. 4. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that petitioner and Aman Bharadwaj had gone to the house of the deceased, and taken him from there. As at what place, time and for what reason the murder has been committed would be revealed only in investigation. Merely because the dead body was found in District Ghaziabad, that does not deprive the Delhi Police to investigate into the matter as the commencement of the offence had started from Delhi, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This is a settled legal proposition that lodging of F. I. R. under Section 154 Cr. P. C. is a statutory right and report can be lodged/registered before any Police Station in India, but if the Police Station where it is lodged comes to the conclusion that offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of some other Police Station, it would transmit the F. I. R. there. 6. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Cr. P. C.) provides for a place of enquiry or trial and reads as under: - (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in several local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. 7. Therefore, it becomes clear that where it is uncertain that in what area offence has been committed, or where offence has been committed partly in one are and partly in another area, then enquiry and trial may be held in any of the said areas. Therefore, the scope and applicability of this provision seems to be to resolve the difficulty that may arise in a case where there is a conflict in respect of commission of an offence between different areas, or partly committed in one area or in several places, the accused may not go scot-free and escape the punishment on a technical ground of competence/jurisdiction, and in such a case, enquiry or trial may be held at either or any of those places. The provisions of Section 178 Cr. P. C. are analogous to the provisions of Section 67 of old Code of 1872 and Illustration A thereof provided that an offence committed in the course of a journey or voyage had to be treated as fallen within the purview of the Section and it was provided that it could be tried or enquired into by any Court in whose jurisdiction the offender passed in the course of the journey or voyage. In fact, this provision is a specific one and supplemental to the 3rd clause of Section 181 (2) of the Code. In this case it remains uncertain as to at which particular place offence has actually been committed, petitioner may be tried at any of those places covered by him in the course of his journey. 8. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. K. P. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 , the Honble Apex Court while dealing with the case of embezzlement, held that in the circumstances when it was not certain that an offence of embezzlement was committed at Bombay or Nagpur, the jurisdiction of trial or enquiry may be held at either of those places. 9. In Mangaldas Raghavji Ruprel v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , AIR 1966 SC 128 , a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court has categorically held that in a matter where it is not certain as to where the offence actually occurred, it becomes immaterial at what place the trial is held. The Court should keep its hands off unless prejudice has resulted to the accused thereby and for determining whether failure of justice has resulted, the Court is required to have regard to the fact as to whether objection has been raised at the trial, and in case no objection has been raised, it would be legitimate to presume that the accused apprehended no prejudice. 10. In State of Delhi Administration v. Sinha Govindji, AIR 1967 Delhi 88, it was held that the Court in whose jurisdiction even an offence has partly been committed, would have jurisdiction to hold a trial or enquiry. In case a defamatory letter is posted at A to be read at B, the offence can be tried either at place A or B (vide M. R. Krishnamurthi Iyar v. C. V. Parasurama Iyar, AIR 1923 Mad. In case a defamatory letter is posted at A to be read at B, the offence can be tried either at place A or B (vide M. R. Krishnamurthi Iyar v. C. V. Parasurama Iyar, AIR 1923 Mad. 666; and Pisupati Purnaiah Sidhanthi v. Pisupati Satyanarayana Sidhanthi, AIR 1959 AP 657 ). 11. In the Public Prosecutor v. T. A. Rathnam Pillai, AIR 1958 Mad 155 , it was held that where an offence is a continuing offence, it may be enquired into or tried in any local area in which it continues to be committed. 12. Thus in view of the above, an inference can be drawn that any Court, in whose territorial jurisdiction an offence has partly been committed, would have jurisdiction to hold the trial or enquiry. It appears that the provisions of Cr. P. C. are analogous to the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that Courts have a territorial jurisdiction where the cause of action has arisen fully or partly. 13. In the instant case, if examined in the light of aforesaid settled legal proposition, it remains undisputed that the accused had gone to the house of the deceased at Delhi and taken him with them from there. His wife has lodged the report of his missing at Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and it is a matter of investigation as to with what intent the accused had gone to the deceaseds house and where, in fact, the offence has been committed. 14. We are of the considered opinion that in this fact situation Delhi Police has a competence to investigate into the matter. More so, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy us as what is the right of the accused to choose the investigating agency in such a case and what is the prejudice which is likely to occur to him if the investigation is carried out by the Delhi Police and the trial is held in Delhi. 15. Investigation is a preliminary stage in the detection of a crime. So far as investigation into any crime or offence is concerned, it is purely for the collection of evidence. It is immaterial whether it is done by Delhi police or U. P. police. Till the stage of investigation, question of prejudice is not likely to arise. It generally occurs at the stage of trial. So far as investigation into any crime or offence is concerned, it is purely for the collection of evidence. It is immaterial whether it is done by Delhi police or U. P. police. Till the stage of investigation, question of prejudice is not likely to arise. It generally occurs at the stage of trial. It is more so in the cases like the one at hand. Here there are two F. I. R. , one of gumshudgi, lodged by the wife, and the other lodged at Ghaziabad by the brother of the deceased. In cases like this, both the States police has jurisdiction to investigate, there is no doubt in the legal position. 16. Petition is totally misconceived, lacks merit, and therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .