Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Order dated, 15.10.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1434(c) of 2001 whereby he has found a prima facie case under Ss. 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners and has directed to issue summons against them for facing trial. 2. The case of the Complainant Rajeev Modi (Opposite Party No. 2) in the complaint petition is that he had come to visit his in-laws in Patna where the Petitioners approached him for being appointed as C and F agent for Bihar for their Company (Rajasthan Breweries Limited) engaged in the business of manufacture of bottles/cans and marketing beer under the brand name of "Strohs Premium" and "Strohs Super Strong". The Petitioners projected and assured that the business was very lucrative and yielding high returns on investments. On the representation made by the Petitioners, the Complainant agreed to become the C and F agent for the State of Rajasthan. On 2.03.1998 the Petitioners appointed him M/S. Dhriti Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. as C and F agent for the State of Rajasthan and a letter of appointment was handed over to him at the residence of his in-laws in Patna. It is further alleged that it was agreed between the Complainant and the Petitioners that the Complainant would supply raw materials and invest Rs. 17.5 lacs and the Petitioners would supply the finished goods for sale. The Complainant as per agreement made payments from time to time to the suppliers for supply of raw materials on the express instruction of the Petitioners and as per statement of accounts as on 15.06.2000 a sum of Rs, 30,24,950 is outstanding against the Petitioners. On 22.10.1999 the Petitioners confirmed the then balance of Rs. 14,46,910.33 Paise and agreed and assured to make payment in instalments of Rupees two lacs per month, but despite the said assurance and the repeated demands, the Petitioners did not make any payment and ultimately refused to do so. On 22.10.1999 the Petitioners confirmed the then balance of Rs. 14,46,910.33 Paise and agreed and assured to make payment in instalments of Rupees two lacs per month, but despite the said assurance and the repeated demands, the Petitioners did not make any payment and ultimately refused to do so. The Complainant thus, has alleged that he was assured by the Petitioners that the goods would be supplied on time and was thus, induced by them to part with huge amount of money and had the Complainant known about the dishonest intention of the Petitioners, he would never have entered into any agreement with them nor would have parted with the hard earned money and that the Petitioners had dishonest intention right from the very beginning to cheat and defraud the Complainant and misappropriate the huge amount of money of the Complainant. 3. It appears that after filing of the complaint, the Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) was examined on solemn affirmation and also examined two witnesses in enquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The learned Magistrate after considering the statements of the Complainant and the witnesses and the documents filed by the Complainant passed the impugned Order. 4. It further appears that the Court had earlier heard the application and by Order dated, 21.02.2005 had dismissed it. Then the Petitioners moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007 by Order dated, 3.01.2007, directed the High Court to pass a fresh Order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna and as such the Court at Patna could not take cognizance and pass the impugned Order. He further submitted that before filing the instant case the Complainant had filed a complaint regarding the same cause of action before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, New Delhi and also a complaint before the Mehrauli Police Station, New Delhi but when he did not succeed in those cases, he filed a complaint case at Patna only to harass the Petitioners. He also submitted that copy of the letter of appointment which is an admitted document would show that the Complainant himself had approached them for being appointed as C and F agent and that the letter is addressed at New Delhi address of the Complainant. So, the question of the Petitioners approaching the Complainant or sending the appointment letter at Patna as alleged is false and this story has been intentionally invented to provide jurisdiction of the Court at Patna. 6. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the dispute is of civil nature and no criminal offence is made out on the basis of the allegation. 7. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant), on the other hand, defended the Order and submitted that the allegations in the complaint petition disclose criminal offence against the Petitioners and as the Complainant was induced at Patna to become C and F agent, a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Court at Patna. He also submitted that even if it be assumed that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Court at Patna, on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry V/s. Rajesh Agrawal, 1999 8 SCC 686 , it has already been held by this Court in the earlier Order dated, 21.02.2005 that quashing on the ground that the Magistrate, who took cognizance had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case is improper and premature. Therefore, this is no ground to quash the Order impugned. 8. It may be mentioned at the outset that the cognizance of offence is taken by the Magistrate under the provisions of Sec. 190 of the Code and there is no embargo therein of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, any Judicial Magistrate of the first class can take cognizance of an offence whether committed within his territorial jurisdiction or not. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that quashing by High Court on the ground that the Magistrate who took cognizance had no jurisdiction to try the case is improper. In the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry (Supra) also this view has been expressed by the Supreme Court. A perusal of the impugned Order, however, shows that the Order was not passed u/s. 190 of the Code. In the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry (Supra) also this view has been expressed by the Supreme Court. A perusal of the impugned Order, however, shows that the Order was not passed u/s. 190 of the Code. The Magistrate had held an enquiry u/s. 202 of the Code and passed the Order u/s. 204 of the Code. Therefore, the above decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable in this case. In that decision also the Supreme Court has observed that the jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant when the question of enquiry and trial arose. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Abraham Ajith and Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4286 also shows that it has been observed therein that lack of territorial jurisdiction is a ground to quash the trial of a case. This also applies to the case of enquiry. 9. The question, hence, is whether the Court at Patna has jurisdiction to make enquiry and pass the impugned Order. Sections 177 to 186 of the Code deals with the place of enquiry and trial. Sec. 177 of the Code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. Sec. 179 of the Code provides that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has been ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. Therefore, in the case of cheating, the enquiry or trial can beheld where misrepresentation was committed by the accused or where the consequence ensued. Under the provisions of Sec. 181(4) of the Code the offence of breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is subject of the offence was received or retained or required to be returned or accounted for by the accused. In the case of V.Abraham Ajith (Supra) it has been held that the crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction of the concerned Court. 10. In this case the complaint has been filed for commission of the offence under Ss. In the case of V.Abraham Ajith (Supra) it has been held that the crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction of the concerned Court. 10. In this case the complaint has been filed for commission of the offence under Ss. 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the question is whether any misrepresentation or inducement took place or any consequence ensued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Patna or whether the offence of criminal breach of trust was committed within the jurisdiction of Patna Court or any part of the property which is subject matter of the offence was received or retained or required to be accounted for or any part of cause of action a rose within the jurisdiction of Patna. 11. The allegation of the Complainant, as mentioned above, is that the Complainant was assured by the Petitioners that the goods would be supplied on time and being thus induced he parted with huge amount of money and had he knew about the dishonest intention, he would not have entered into any agreement with them nor would have parted with hard earned money. But there is no allegation that any such inducement was made at Patna or the Complainant parted with any part of his money at Patna or that the Petitioners were required to account for any property at Patna or any agreement was executed within the jurisdiction of Patna. 12. The case of the Complainant is that he was approached by the Petitioners to become C and F agent of their Company and he was assured that their business was lucrative. It is also alleged that the letter of appointment was handed over in Patna. But from the copy of letter of appointment which is an admitted document, it appears that it was the Complainant who had approached the Petitioners for becoming the C and F agent. The document also shows that the letter was sent to the Delhi address of the Complainant. Therefore, the above allegations appear to be false. Of course, at this stage the evidence is not to be weighed meticulously. So, even if the above allegations are accepted on their face value, they do not constitute any part of cause of action. Cause of action means those facts which are necessary to be proved to substantiate the charge. Therefore, the above allegations appear to be false. Of course, at this stage the evidence is not to be weighed meticulously. So, even if the above allegations are accepted on their face value, they do not constitute any part of cause of action. Cause of action means those facts which are necessary to be proved to substantiate the charge. But these facts are not at all necessary to prove the offences under Ss. 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Besides this, the Complainant admittedly was appointed C and F agent of the Petitioners and there is nothing to show that the business of the Petitioners was not lucrative. So, there was no question of misrepresentation or false inducements far the alleged acts are concerned. 13. It is, therefore, evident that even prima facie no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Patna. The learned Magistrate, hence, was not empowered to make any enquiry and pass the impugned Order. The trial of the case cannot also be held within the jurisdiction of Court at Patna and, hence, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to continue with the proceeding of the case within the jurisdiction of any Court at Patna. Accordingly, without discussing whether any offence is made out on the allegation, the impugned Order is quashed and this application is allowed.