JUDGMENT SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Manpreet Doad alias Manpreet Kaur Doad as petitioner against the State of West Bengal and Mr. Madan Mohan Goenka, Director of M/s. India Forex Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as opposite parties. Petitioner has filed this case for quashing the proceedings of Alipore Police Station Case No. 16 of 2014 dated 21.1.2014 under Sections 408/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66 and 72 of the Information Technologies Act, 2000. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner got recruitment as management trainee, in the Campus Interview conducted by her college V.G. Vaze College under Mumbai University, in M/s. India Forex Advisors Pvt. Ltd. She joined there on 2.5.2011. Within a short period she was promoted there as Senior Analyst. Her responsibility was to research and providing foreign exchange advisory to a small number of clients of that concern. After joining as management trainee firstly, she was under probation for six months as per her letter of appointment. While she was working there certain untowards incident took place which the petitioner could not tolerate. Some officers of the company and management of the company tried to malign the prestige and dignity of the petitioner. The womanhood of the petitioner was insulted for which on 27.8.2013 the petitioner submitted her notice of resignation informing the company that from November she would not attend the office. On the 5th November, 2013 the petitioner wrote an E-mail to the Company categorically stating that the official number which was with her, would mark a courier to submit the same as she would not be able to do it personally. She further stated that as she did not know when she would return back, meanwhile all calls were diverted to Anurag’s number and all her clients details were kept in the folder named back up on her desktop. The password for the file was manpreet 123 n. Her Gmail password was known to the research team. Petitioner handed over everything to the company before leaving the office and after leaving the company she joined Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. in the mid of November, 2013. On 26th December, 2013 the petitioner got a letter from solicitor of the company whereby the opposite party no. Petitioner handed over everything to the company before leaving the office and after leaving the company she joined Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. in the mid of November, 2013. On 26th December, 2013 the petitioner got a letter from solicitor of the company whereby the opposite party no. 2 pointed out the breach of the terms and conditions of the appointment content in the appointment letter dated 18.4.2011. The opposite party no. 2 again sent letters on 27.12.2013 to C.E.O. Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. and other officers of that company stating that appointment of the petitioner in their concern was unlawful and some baseless allegations were made in those letters. On 11th January, 2014 the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint with the officer-in-charge Alipore Police Station stating some utopian, concocted stories without making out cognizable case against the petitioner. It was complained that the petitioner was interested with some software, life tickers etc. and those are very much confidential to the Company of opposite party no. 2. Police did not take steps upon the said complaint of opposite party no. 2. Then the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for treating the same as FIR and for investigation on that complaint. Accordingly, said complaint was forwarded to officer-in-charge of Alipore Police Station for treating that complaint as FIR. On the basis of that complaint Alipore Police Station Case No. 16 of 2014 dated 21.1.2014 under Sections 408/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66 and 72 of the Information Technologies Act, 2000 was started. Stating inter alia, the petitioner has claimed that after resignation from the company of opposite party no. 2 the agreement between the petitioner and the said company has got no legal sanction. The opposite party no. 2 has no authority to restrain the petitioner from earning the livelihood. Yet, the petitioner was threatened by the company that they would ruin her carrier and misusing their money power, sufficient contacts and influence they would make sure that the petitioner becomes jobless and is put behind the bars. The opposite party no. 2 filed a civil suit for declaration with mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioner before the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore. The opposite party no. 2 filed a civil suit for declaration with mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioner before the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore. In that suit it was alleged that this petitioner did not hand over the research data, software, programmes of the Companies Customer, confidential information, written notes or electronic forms stored in the pen drive, hard disk and other devices to the company. A perpetual injunction was prayed for restraining this petitioner from continuing her employment with Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. or any other company carrying on a similar line of business as that of the plaintiff Company and also for perpetual injunction restraining this petitioner from using, divulging and passing off strictly or through any other manner or any entity, any trade secret or confidential information of the Company including its data relating to operational and technical information or any other information relating to any aspect of business of the opposite party no. 2. In that suit further injunction was prayed for restraining this petitioner from soliciting the customers of the plaintiff and/or approaching the customers of the plaintiff for diverting them to any other Company or entity purporting to represent such Company on the basis of the confidential data of the plaintiff in petitioner’s illegal and wrongful custody. Ad interim temporary injunction was prayed for in that suit but it was rejected. Against such rejection the opposite party no. 2 of this case filed Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 2014 in the Court of learned District Judge at Alipore and firstly, the prayer for injunction was allowed in that appeal but after contested hearing the Misc. Appeal has been dismissed. Contending inter alia, the petitioner has contended that she was engaged in the Company of opposite party no. 2 in Mumbai and her place of work was in Mumbai. Although there was never any cause of action for bringing any suit or proceeding in West Bengal, the aforesaid injunction order was intimated by opposite party no. 2 to the Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. and, thereafter, the petitioner resigned from her job at Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. as she was assured that opposite party no. 2 would withdraw the criminal case and civil suit against the petitioner but subsequently it was not done. 2 to the Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. and, thereafter, the petitioner resigned from her job at Mecklai Financial Services Ltd. as she was assured that opposite party no. 2 would withdraw the criminal case and civil suit against the petitioner but subsequently it was not done. The petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the criminal case being Alipore Police Station Case No. 16 of 2014 under Sections 408/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66 and 72 of the Information Technologies Act, 2000. Challenging the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of West Bengal the petitioner has prayed for quashing the criminal; proceedings. Petitioner has annexed the copies of relevant papers in support of her contentions. Point for decision Is the criminal proceedings being Alipore Police Station Case No. 16 of 2014 dated 21.1.2014 corresponding to C.G.R. No. 349 of 2014 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore started on the basis of a complaint made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by M/s. India Forex Advisors Pvt. Ltd. liable to be quashed? Findings In addition to the merits of the case the matter of quashing the proceedings hinges upon the question as to whether the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore has jurisdiction to entertain the case or not. Relating to jurisdiction the provisions of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be followed. Let us read the Section 181:- “Place of trial in case of certain offences.- (1) Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of decoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found. (2) Any offence of kidnapping or adduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or adducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained. (2) Any offence of kidnapping or adduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or adducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained. (3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. (5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property”. According to the alleged facts of the complaint, the alleged offence was committed in Mumbai and not in West Bengal. Under Sub-Section 4 as aforesaid the Courts of West Bengal cannot assume jurisdiction to hear such case. At the time of hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 553. In that case the land mark judgment of Bhajan Lal case which was reported in 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 426 has been relied upon. In paragraph 11 of the cited decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to discuss the Bhajan Lal case as “In Bhajan Lal case, this Court enumerated the categories of cases, by way of illustration, wherein the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 487 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. In para 102, these categories of cases are listed as under: (SCC pp. 378-379) (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provision of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also cited another decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police Chennai & Anr. reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also cited another decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police Chennai & Anr. reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100. Relying upon the principles discussed in that decision learned Advocate for the petitioner has advanced his arguments that for want of jurisdiction of the Court of Alipore in West Bengal the proceedings are required to be quashed. Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 2 had advanced his arguments that undisputedly the opposite party no. 2 company has its registered office in Kolkata within the jurisdiction of Alipore Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that Alipore Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the petitioner has advanced the arguments that existence of registered office of the opposite party no. 2 in Kolkata is not sufficient to give rise to the opposite party no. 2 for maliciously dragging the petitioner to West Bengal to face a criminal trial when according to the case of the opposite party there is no whispering that any offence was committed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Alipore Court. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129. Learned Advocate has advanced his arguments that since alleged offence was not committed within the local limits of territorial jurisdiction of Alipore Court the proceeding is liable to be quashed. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 663. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that excepting the malicious intention of the opposite party no. 2 for the purpose of harassing the petitioner there is no reason to file the criminal case against the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in West Bengal. He has submitted that such malicious intention of the opposite party no. 2 against the lady petitioner should not be given indulgence. 2 for the purpose of harassing the petitioner there is no reason to file the criminal case against the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in West Bengal. He has submitted that such malicious intention of the opposite party no. 2 against the lady petitioner should not be given indulgence. According to him, miscarriage of justice is being caused by continuation of the criminal proceeding in Alipore Court. On going through the cited decisions and relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on going through the petitioner’s application with its annexures this Court is of the view that under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the instant case, according to the copy of complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2 alleged offence was committed in Mumbai and in course of whole transaction nothing alleged to had happened in West Bengal. From the face value of the complaint prima facie it does not appear that there is any ambiguity or uncertainty as to where the alleged offence has been committed. As such, it is not a fit case to be dealt with under Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying upon the decision reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129 this Court is satisfied that the offence, if any, as alleged was committed by the petitioner outside West Bengal and, therefore, Alipore Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the criminal cases. Following the principles discussed in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 663 if all the allegations of the complaint of opposite party no. 2 had taken at the face value as true. The jurisdiction of Alipore Court is found absent. As such, the criminal proceedings being Alipore Police Station Case No. 16 of 2014 dated 21.01.2014 under Sections 408/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66 and 72 of the Information Technologies Act, 2000 vide C.G.R. No. 349 of 2014 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore which was started on the basis of complaint made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by opposite party no. 2 M/s. India Forex Advisors Pvt. Ltd. is hereby quashed. 2 M/s. India Forex Advisors Pvt. Ltd. is hereby quashed. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus allowed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore for information and discharge of petitioner Manpreet Doad @ Manpreet Kaur Doad from bail bond. Urgent certified photocopy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties observing all requisite formalities.