Respondents though were put on notice but have not chosen to appear, therefore, matter is taken up for consideration in their absence. 1. Based on the complaint and the statements recorded of one witness and the complainant in support of the complaint, trial court has taken cognizance vide order dated 12.5.2010, as such, has issued process against the petitioners(accused) for commission of Offences punishable under Section 417,418 and 420 RPC. Aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed seeking quashment of the entire proceedings. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners on the count of default in making due payments, the criminal complaint could not be filed as the transaction was civil in nature, no offence at all on the showing of the complainant is made out. Additionally business has been transacted in Rajasthan where the petitioners reside and are carrying on their business and at Aurangabad where the respondent has its registered office, so there was no cause or occurrence within the territorial limits of Srinagar; therefore, taking of cognizance by the trial court is without jurisdiction. 3. Respondent is a public limited company with its registered office in Au­rangabad and branch offices all over India including its office at Darul-Owais, Rajbagh Srinagar. Being leading manufacturer and seller of electronic items and consumer durables in the trade name of "VIDEOCON" has business all over the country. The petitioner (accused) is engaged in the trade of electronic goods besides doing the business of trading with electronic goods appliances and gadgets, was also dealing in sale of goods manufactured by the respondent (complainant) company on credit basis. 4. Noticing the irregularity in the payments, respondent time and again has requested the petitioner to make the payments as the outstanding amount had swallowed to Rs.36,52, 268.38/. Irregularity in making the payment was taken as a betrayal by the respondent company and same was taken as an act of mala-fide intention with the object of cheating. It is on the said basis, complaint has been tiled. 5. Irregularity in making the payment was taken as a betrayal by the respondent company and same was taken as an act of mala-fide intention with the object of cheating. It is on the said basis, complaint has been tiled. 5. Various pages of the customer ledger as maintained by the respondent company, which the respondent has annexed with the complaint, clearly indicates as to how business transactions were going on between the petitioner and respon­dents various entries recorded therein from 29.12.2008 till 23.2.2010 also show as to how goods have been supplied to the petitioner company and how and in what manner petitioner company has been making the payments. So the non-payment of alleged outstanding amount is an off shoot of civil transaction, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 417,418 and 420 RFC. 6. Respondent company conscious about the question of jurisdiction in para 9 of the complaint has made an averment that the Court of Magistrate has jurisdiction as the complainant company has its business office at Srinagar. In support thereof, has referred to the law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 3499 (Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others) 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial court has not applied its mind, in the process question of jurisdiction has escaped the attention. To buttress this submission, attention was invited towards the trial court record wherein complaint has beer, shown presented on 11.5.2010 before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Srinagar and on the same date it has been transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar. On the face of complaint, Forest Magistrate has recorded : Criminal clerk to report Sd/ 12.5.2010 8. In the interim order recorded on 12.5.2010, it is mentioned that the statement of the complainant and a witness in support of the complaint has been recorded but the same is shown to have been recorded on 11.5.2010. How can the statements be recorded on 11.5.2010 when the Magistrate has received the file on 12.5.2010 and has marked the same on 12.5.2010, clearly indicates how the matter has been dealt with. 9. How can the statements be recorded on 11.5.2010 when the Magistrate has received the file on 12.5.2010 and has marked the same on 12.5.2010, clearly indicates how the matter has been dealt with. 9. Be it as it is the important question is as to whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or to take cognizance when admittedly all transactions have taken place outside the jurisdiction i.e. in Aurangabad and Rajasthan. 10. In the bird's eye view, provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. clearly provide that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by the court within whose jurisdiction it has been committed Part VI Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in enquiries and trials. ; Keeping in view the allegations and details given in the complaint or in the statement of witness and of the complainant, it is Section 177 which applies. Rest of the provisions of the Chapter shall have no applicability. 11. The complaint if at all had any substance could be lodged where the occurrence or part of occurrence has taken place, which admittedly had not taken place in Srinagar district. 12. It appears that the filing of complaint at Srinagar by the respondent company against the petitioners who belong to State of Rajas than is simply to drag them to Srinagar. The continuance of the Criminal proceedings at Srinagar or even taking of cognizance at Srinagar in the said backdrop can safely be termed to be the abuse of process of court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the copy of the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case captioned M/S Shivanshiv T.V. Centre v. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd (561-A No.102/2008) dated 3.7.2009. In the said judgment, it is the respondent company which had filed a similar complaint against the petitioner therein (M/S Shivanshiv TV Centre) and in the judgment it was concluded on the similar facts that the Court of Magistrate at Srinagar has no jurisdiction, taking of cognizance was termed to be abuse of process of the Court. 14. Invocation of the power under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. has to be in exceptional cases and the present case is the one such exception. The proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar shall stand quashed. 14. Invocation of the power under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. has to be in exceptional cases and the present case is the one such exception. The proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar shall stand quashed. 15. Copy of the order along with subordinate record be send to the trial court for information.