Judgment :- Petitioner in this petition has sought to quash or to set-aside the impugned notice dated 30th June 2008 bearing No.CCB/Kannadam:08 issued by the fourth respondent at Annexure H and all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice and to award exemplary cost payable by respondent Nos.3 to 6. 2. The facts in brief are that, petitioner is a licensed catering contractor and doing catering business with the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Limited. The petitioner has obtained the necessary licence to manage a stall in Yeshwanthpur Railway Station and on board service in Brindavan Express Train No.2639-40, MASSBC. The said licence was awarded in view of cancellation of licence granted in favour of the fifth respondent after coming to know that he had misrepresented the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Ltd. by producing false documents and not catering as per the terms and conditions of the licence granted in favour of said respondent. Keeping that in mind, the fifth respondent instead of redressing his grievance before the competent authority, has chosen to threaten the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. At that stage, petitioner was constrained to submit an application to the jurisdictional police station to give police protection on 30th June 2008. The police authorities viz. the fourth respondent Police Inspector, Women and Narcotics Division, City Crime Branch, N.T. Pet, Bangalore, instead of extending protection to the petitioner and his family members, to the shock and surprise of petitioner, has issued the notice vide Annexure H. The said authority has entertained the complaint given by the fifth respondent and in turn called upon the petitioner to appear before him regarding the allegation made by fifth respondent regarding the financial misappropriation made by petitioner to the fifth respondent on 1st July 2008 at 11 A.M. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by fourth respondent that, the fourth respondent has no power to register the complaint against the petitioner and conduct investigation. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court redressing his grievance seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 4. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court redressing his grievance seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner at the outset submitted that, the impugned notice issued calling the petitioner to appear before the fourth respondent on 1st July 2008 at 11 A.M. for investigation cannot be sustained and is one without jurisdiction for the reason that, the said authority has no power whatsoever to receive the complaint and conduct investigation against the petitioner and that, the only competent authority who can register and proceed with the investigation is the jurisdictional Police authority and not the fourth respondent. To substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2002 Kar.P.2909 in the case of N. Rajachar and others Vs. Kodandarama and others, wherein at paragraph 20, it is held that, the C.C.B. and C.C.B. (F and M) are not police station and undisputedly, they have no authority to register the case. On the other hand, the case has to be registered in the respective Police Station and thereafter only, they have to take up investigation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned notice issued by fourth respondent is liable to be set aside at the threshold. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents and after perusal of the notice impugned and other material available on record, including the order passed by this Court in the case of N. Rajachar and others Vs. Kodandarama and others reported in ILR. 2002 Kar.2909, it emerges that, this Court has held that, the C.C.B. and C.C.B. (F and M) are not police station and undisputedly, they have no authority to register the case. On the other hand, the case has to be registered in the respective Police Station and thereafter only, they have to take up investigation. Further, it is observed by this Court that, it is clear that the very reference is not only improper but is also illegal. 6. On the other hand, the case has to be registered in the respective Police Station and thereafter only, they have to take up investigation. Further, it is observed by this Court that, it is clear that the very reference is not only improper but is also illegal. 6. Keeping in the view the ratio of law laid down by this Court (supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it emerges that, on the basis of the complaint given to the superior authority, the Police Inspector, Women and Narcotics Division, C.C.B. N.T.pet, Bangalore – the fourth respondent has issued the impugned notice and called upon the petitioner to appear before him to give statement regarding misappropriation of certain sums committed by the petitioner against the fifth respondent. The said reasons assigned for issuing the impugned notice cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside at the threshold. If at all, the said authority had received the complaint through the higher officer, the concerned Officer ought to have forwarded the same to the concerned jurisdictional Police Station and the said jurisdictional Police authority, after registration of the complaint against the petitioner, in turn, ought to have referred the matter to the City Crime Branch, wherein the fourth respondent is working as Police Inspector. Thereafter, the said authority could have proceeded further in accordance with law and conducted with further investigation. Until and unless a complaint is registered before the jurisdictional Police Station, the fourth respondent has no power to take up the matter directly on the basis of the complaint received and issue notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on certain date and time. Hence, the same is one without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by fourth respondent dated 30th June 2008 bearing No.:CCB: Kannadam:08 vide Annexure H is hereby set aside. The fourth respondent is directed to forward the complaint in question to the jurisdictional Police Station forthwith and the jurisdictional Police Authority, in turn is directed to register the complaint and proceed with further investigation in the matter in accordance with law and to decide the same, after affording opportunity to petitioner and fifth respondent, if need arise. 7. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of.