JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A CrPC, the petitioners inter alia seek quashing of the complaint titled Manvinder Singh v. Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. and others pending before the learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Poonch under Sections 420/323/504 & 506 RPC and the order of issuance of process dated 23.10.2017 passed therein. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of taking cognizance on the ground that the trial court has not appreciated the real facts and the order of cognizance has been taken without territorial jurisdiction, even otherwise from bare perusal of the complaint it reveals that no offence is made out against the petitioners; that petitioner No. 1 is a company dealing with the financing of vehicle loans and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are its employees who are well versed with the facts and are competent to file the present petition; that the respondent was engaged as Executive by petitioner No. 1 in the year 2015, and while the respondent was discharging his duty at Rajouri office of petitioner No. 1, it came to the knowledge of the company that the respondent has embezzled huge money of company after accepting installment amount from customer and neither issued proper receipt of the same nor deposited the collected amount with the company; that a detailed enquiry was conducted against the respondent whereafter the respondent was terminated from the services on 11.01.2017; that petitioner No. 1 also filed complaint under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 RPC with Crime Branch Jammu against the respondent on 17.02.2017, in which after preliminary inquiry conducted by the SSP Rajouri, I.G. Crimes directed for lodging of FIR against the respondent; that in a counter blast to this FIR, respondent filed a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner that too at Poonch and the learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Poonch in a casual manner without applying his mind has issued order of cognizance dated 23.10.2017 for offence under Sections 420/506 KPC against the petitioner without any territorial jurisdiction. 3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. It is apt to reproduce the relevant paras 5, 6 & 7 of the complaint as under: 5. That in the post of the applicant there was employee namely Simranjeet Singh. The applicant had taken some money from him. On that demand he had created dispute. 3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. It is apt to reproduce the relevant paras 5, 6 & 7 of the complaint as under: 5. That in the post of the applicant there was employee namely Simranjeet Singh. The applicant had taken some money from him. On that demand he had created dispute. Thereafter friendship developed between Simranjeet Singh and the accused No. 2 and both of them starting going to every household. And both of them jointly decided to oust complainant and wanted to adjust cousin of Simranjeet Singh whose name is Gagandeep Singh and is currently employee in the Company. 6. That the accused persons with their conspiracy called the applicant to Jammu and there snatched the machine from the applicant which caused insult to the applicant. And the accused persons in connivance with the Accountant applied fluid on the attendances in the register and changed attendances into absents, which act is illegal done by the accused and have cheated the complainant/applicant. The applicant has photographs of the attendance register in his mobile phone. 7. That the applicant approached the H.R. of the Company namely Surinder Kumar and narrated him the whole matter. He advised that the applicant should go to Rajouri office for two months and will work there but the applicant refused telling that the applicant is a poor person and is unable to make expenditure of Rs. 500/- per day. The H.R. and accused No. 2 said that they would provide me T.A. in addition to my salary so that there shall be no expenditure of the applicant. Then the applicant went to Rajouri for two months. The accused did not pay even salary to the applicant for two months, nor paid T.A. to the applicant and after two months committed cheating with the applicant by putting absents on the register and ousted the applicant from service. 5. From perusal of the relevant paras mentioned above, it is evident that the alleged offence if any has taken place at Jammu or Rajouri, so JMIC, Poonch has no territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 177 CrPC, which reads as under:- 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 6. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 6. Section 177 of the CrPC unambiguously states, that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 7. "Offence", by virtue of the definition ascribed to the word by Section 4(k) of the CrPC means any act or omission made punishable by any law. Keeping in perspective the presence of the word "ordinarily" in Section 177 of CrPC, we hasten to adumbrate that the exceptions to it are contained in the CrPC itself, that is, in the contents of the succeeding Sections. The CrPC also contains an explication of "complaint" as any allegation to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action in respect of the commission of an offence; not being a police report. Prosecution ensues from a Complaint or police report for the purpose of determining the culpability of a person accused of the commission of a crime; Section 177, CrPC explicitly states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 8. In view of above section, I am of the considered opinion that JMIC, Poonch has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process in the complaint filed by the respondent. 9. Further perusal of contents of complaint, the relevant paras of which I have mentioned, it is apparent that facts have been manufactured in order to create an illusion that criminal cause of action has accrued. Admittedly complainant was employee in said Mahindra and Mahindra finance company and was discharging his duty at Rajouri; he embezzled huge money of company, by receiving installment from customers and after that not depositing the same with company; inquiry was conducted by office and his services were terminated thereafter. The petitioners are employees of Mahindra and Mahindra Company and allegations have been leveled against them with respect to act done in official capacity. So from going through the whole complaint, it is evident that, complaint has been filed with mala fide and has been 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. So from going through the whole complaint, it is evident that, complaint has been filed with mala fide and has been 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. The allegations made in the 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. Further from the perusal of impugned order of issuance of notice dated 23.10.2017, it would reveal that the magistrate has taken cognizance and issued the process in casual manner. Even in complaint there is no mention as to whether complainant has ever approached to police in terms of Section 154(1) and (2) of CrPC, prior to filing complaint before the magistrate. 10. In view of above, this petition is allowed and complaint pending before court below and order of taking cognizance is quashed.