JUDGMENT : (Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.) 1. Heard Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Assam (respondent No. 1) as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This Criminal Petition has been registered on filing of an application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner, namely, Shri Pabitra Kumar Hira, impugning the judgment and order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Session Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Criminal Revision Case No. 1/2022, whereby, the said criminal revision was allowed and the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, in CR Case No. 243/2014 was set aside. By the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Darrang, Mangaldai had framed charges against the respondent No.2 under Section 420/406/385 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows: i. The complainant (present petitioner) is the proprietor of M/s D & N Enterprise, Mangaldai, Assam and of M/s Hira Feed Stores, Mangaldai, and he is doing the business of power tillers and tractors. For several years, he had procured Khajana Power tillers from M/s Khajana Agricultural Equipment’s Limited, Kolkata for supplying the same to the Government of Assam. ii. The petitioner herein had filed a complaint case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldai, against two accused persons, namely, Shri Anil Todi @ Anil Kumar Todi (Respondent No. 2 herein) and Shri P.K. Sarkar under Section 383/385/403/406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint case was registered as CR Case No. 243/2014. iii. In the aforementioned complaint, filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, the present petitioner has alleged that accused No. 1 therein, namely, Shri Anil Todi, (present respondent No. 2), who is the Managing Director of M/s Khajana Agricultural Equipment’s Limited, as well as M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited, which had its office at Kolkata and also at Guwahati, as well as the accused No.2, therein, namely, Mr. P.K. Sarkar, who is employee of the accused No.1, have failed to deliver the 40 numbers of power tillers to the complainant, in spite of the payment of Rs. P.K. Sarkar, who is employee of the accused No.1, have failed to deliver the 40 numbers of power tillers to the complainant, in spite of the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to the accused persons for the same. iv. It is stated in the complaint petition that on 17.03.2005, the complainant (present petitioner), visited the common office of M/s Khazana Agricultural Equipment Limited, as well as Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited at Strand Road, Kolkata, to purchase 40 numbers of Khazana S-1100 power tillers. On that day. the accused persons had instructed the complainant (present petitioner), to make an advance payment of Rs. 25 lakhs for the purchase of a forced power tillers by demand draft in favour of M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited as the delivery of the said power tillers was to be done by the Guwahati office of Shivdurga Finance and Investment, Private Limited. v. Accordingly, the complainant (present petitioner), handed over a demand draft for Rs. 25 lakhs to the accused No.1 (Respondent No. 2) at his Kolkata office on 17.03.2005 and also wrote a letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39 then and there and requested the accused to dispatch the said power tiller within 20.03.2005. The accused No.1 (Respondent No. 2) acknowledged the receipt of the said demand draft and the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was credited to the account of M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited. vi. However, thereafter, the accused persons failed to deliver the 40 numbers of power tiller, as promised to the complainant (petitioner), in spite of repeated requests. vii. Apart from the aforesaid allegation, the petitioner has also accused the accused No. 1 (Respondent No. 2) of blackmailing him by demanding Rs.5 lakh and threatening to disclose confidential information that would harm the petitioner. viii. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 22.04.2014, examined the complainant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter, the case was fixed for further inquiry. During further inquiry, two witnesses were recorded, and after considering the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant, as well as other materials on record including the statement of witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang found a prima facie case against the accused persons under Section 406/385/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly issued processes against the accused persons. ix. ix. Both the accused persons (Anil Kumar Todi and Mr. P. K. Sarkar), appeared before the Trial Court. Though, they took the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction as well as some other objections before the Trial Court, however, after considering the materials available on record along with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were recorded before framing of charge under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by order dated 12.11.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie materials under Section 420/406/385 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1, namely Anil Kumar Todi (Respondent No.2) and accordingly, framed charges against him. However, no such prima facie material was found against the another accused, namely, P. K. Sarkar and he was discharged by the said order. x. Being aggrieved by the order framing charges against him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, the respondent No. 2 (Accused No. 1) preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai. The case was registered as Criminal Revision No. 1/2022 xi. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, through the impugned judgment, which set aside the order framing charges against the respondent No. 2 (accused No. 1). The petitioner has challenged the said judgment in the instant criminal petition. 4. Ms. P. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, whereby it had set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by which charges were framed against the respondent No.2 under Section 420/406/385 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. She submits that though, it is clear that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the respondent No.2 for delivery of power tillers at Mangaldai and though, the said amount has been credited to the account of the company of the respondent No. 2, however, in spite of that, the petitioner has intentionally not delivered the power tillers to the petitioner at Mangaldai. 6. 25 lakhs to the respondent No.2 for delivery of power tillers at Mangaldai and though, the said amount has been credited to the account of the company of the respondent No. 2, however, in spite of that, the petitioner has intentionally not delivered the power tillers to the petitioner at Mangaldai. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the learned Sessions Judge has, in the impugned judgment, come to the finding that the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, does not have territorial jurisdiction, by holding that no offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Darrang district, however, the materials on record, including the letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39, which was given to the Accused No. 1 (Respondent No. 2), on 17/03/2005, by the petitioner, clearly shows that the Power Tillers were to be delivered at Mangaldai by the accused. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, erred in holding that no offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Darrang district. She argues that, in this case, the non-delivery of the power tillers to the petitioner at Mangaldai, Darrang, constitutes an essential ingredient of the alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. She further submits that the act of non-delivery and its consequences occurred within the local jurisdiction of the courts at Mangaldai, therefore, the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, at Mangaldai, has the territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, especially in view of the provisions of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if, for the argument sake, it is assumed that the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint case filed by the present petitioner, however, the order of framing of charges dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would be saved by the provisions of Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in as much as, under the said provision, unless it has occasioned a failure of justice, lack of territorial jurisdiction may not be the ground for setting aside the order passed by the said court. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, the trial of an offender by a Court which does not have territorial jurisdiction can be saved under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana and others” reported in (2020) 10 SCC 92 . 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondent No.2 had approached the Supreme Court of India for transferring of the complaint case from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darang to the appropriate Court at Kolkata on the ground that the Criminal Court at Mangaldai did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. However, the said case was dismissed on withdrawal by the Apex Court and accordingly in paragraph No. 10 of the instant criminal petition, though the petitioner took the plea of the constructive res judicata in raising the ground of territorial jurisdiction again by the respondent No. 2 before any court, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she is no longer pressing the said plea in this case. 11. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that though, the petitioner has stated in his complaint petition that an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs were paid to M/s Shivdurga Finance Limited by a demand draft on 17.03.2005. However, there is nothing on record to show that there was any agreement to deliver the 40 numbers of power tillers to the petitioner at Mangaldai. He submits that the evidence of the petitioner which was recorded under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before framing of charges clearly shows that the 40 numbers of power tillers were to be sent by the respondent No. 2 to the Guwahati Office of Shivdurga Finance and Investment Private Limited. He submits that there is nothing to show that there was any agreement to deliver the same at Mangaldai. 12. He submits that there is nothing to show that there was any agreement to deliver the same at Mangaldai. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39 has never been exhibited by the witnesses for the complainant before the Trial Court and the said letter was never produced before the Trial Court. Therefore, what were the contents of the said letter were not known to anyone. Hence, he submits that same cannot be used to invoke the jurisdiction of the Courts at Mangaldai in this case. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that though the respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the transfer application filed by him before the Supreme Court wherein he had prayed for transfer of the complaint case from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldai to the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, at Kolkata. However, in the present case, he submits that the order for dismissal on withdrawal was passed by the Supreme Court of India while denying special leave in the SLP. He submits that as the special leave was not granted by the Supreme Court, as the respondent No. 2 prayed for withdrawal of the SLP, hence nothing was decided on merit and the Apex Court did not exercise its appellate jurisdiction and therefore, the doctrine of merger would not be applicable in this case and the order passed by the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP on withdrawal would not operate as a constructive Res Judicata preventing the respondent No. 2 from taking the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction in any future proceeding. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case “Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another” reported in (2006) SCC 159. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that in the instant case, the order of framing of charges against the respondent No.2 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldai would not be saved under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the proceeding which is void under Section 461 cannot be saved under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that under Section 461(L), if any Magistrate not being empowered in this behalf, tries an offender, such a proceeding shall be void under Section 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and a case which falls within the ambit of Section 461 (L) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be saved under the provision of Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana and Others (supra). 15. In addition to the above, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that though, the petitioner has alleged in his complaint petition that an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs were paid through demand draft to the M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited Company, however, said company has not been made as an accused in the complaint petition case. Hence, for that reason alone, the complaint is not maintainable. He also submits that the petitioner has also not shown any link between the Respondent No. 2 and M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited Company. No document has been exhibited to show as to how the Respondent No. 2 was connected with the M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited Company and therefore, the complaint case is not maintainable. He therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang does not warrant any interference by this Court. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent side. I have also perused the materials available on record carefully. Before considering the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for both the sides, the relevant portion of the impugned judgement is reproduced for the sake of convenience herein below: - “10. I have gone through the complaint petition as well as other materials on record. In the said complaint petition, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) has mentioned the places of occurrence to be Mangaldai, Guwahati and Kolkata. I have gone through the complaint petition as well as other materials on record. In the said complaint petition, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) has mentioned the places of occurrence to be Mangaldai, Guwahati and Kolkata. However, after going through the complaint petition, I have come to the finding that no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Darang district, cause of action, if any, arose amongst other places at Kolkata and Guwahati etc. on the close scrutiny of the evidence of the Respondent No. 2 as complainant in the complaint petition in paragraph No. 11 of the complaint petition would show that the demand draft of Rs. 25 lakhs was credited to the account of M/s. Shivdurga Finance and Investment Private Limited. However, said Shivdurga Finance and Investment Private Limited has not been made a party in the complaint petition. 13. The complainant Respondent No. 2 has not shown any connection of Anil Kumar Todi (petitioner) with Shivdurga Finance and Investment Private Limited. 14. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has defended the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by learned Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited (sic) in CR Case No. 243/2014 submitting that the said order has been rightly passed by framing charges under Section 420/406/385 IPC against the petitioner. 15. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the contesting side and have gone through the impugned order dated 12.11.2021. 16. As I have come to the finding that no offence, if any, was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Darang District, the Courts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darang, Mangaldai lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 framing charges against the petitioner. 17. In view of the above, I have come to the finding that the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 suffers from incorrectness, impropriety and illegality, and hence, same is liable to be interfered with. Order 18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 is set aside. The revision is allowed on contest and disposed of. 17. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the places of trial, provides as follows: “Section 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial, thus every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” 18. The revision is allowed on contest and disposed of. 17. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the places of trial, provides as follows: “Section 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial, thus every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” 18. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quoted herein below: “Section 179. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” 19. On perusal of the impugned judgment, more specifically the paragraph No. 16 thereof, it appears that the learned Session Judge, Darrang has set aside the order dated 12.11.2021 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang framing charges against the Respondent No. 2, mainly on the ground that the learned Session Judge came to a finding that no offence, if any, was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Darrang district and therefore, the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, lacks territorial jurisdictions. 20. Let us now, examine as to whether the learned Session Judge, Darrang was right in setting aside the order of framing charges against the respondent No.3 under Section 420/406/385 of the Indian Penal Court by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldai. 21. On perusal of the complaint petition of CR Case No.243/2014, a copy of which is available in the record, it appears that the petitioner, who was the complainant of the said CR Case, is the permanent resident of Mangaldai in the district of Darrang, Assam. He is the proprietor of M/s D & N Enterprise as well as M/s Hira Feed Stores, both of which are also situated at Mangaldai. It also appears from the statement made in the complaint petition that petitioner was asked to make an advance payment of Rs. 25 lakhs and he handed over the demand draft of Rs. 25 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 at his Kolkata Office on 17.03.2005. The materials on record also shows that the petitioner also wrote a letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39 and requested the respondent No. 2 to dispatch the power tillers within 20.03.2005. 25 lakhs and he handed over the demand draft of Rs. 25 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 at his Kolkata Office on 17.03.2005. The materials on record also shows that the petitioner also wrote a letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39 and requested the respondent No. 2 to dispatch the power tillers within 20.03.2005. It is also stated therein that the delivery of power tiller was to be made by the Guwahati Office of M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited. Though, there is no specific averment made in the complaint petition to show that the delivery of power tillers was to be made at Mangaldai, however, it does mentions about the letter No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39, which is annexed with this Criminal Petition. On perusal of the said letter, it appears that the respondent No.2 was requested by the said letter to dispatch the 40 numbers of Khajana Power Tillers within 20.03.2005 at Mangaldai. 22. On perusal of the initial deposition of the complainant which was recorded by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldai under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it appears that the complainant has categorically stated there in that after making the advance payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited, the petitioner, on 17.03.2005, also wrote a letter requesting the respondent No.3 to dispatch 40 numbers of power tillers within 20.03.2005. 23. It also appears that the learned Session Judge, Darrang, while coming to the finding that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Darang District, has not made any whisper about the said letter, though the mention about the said letter is there not only in the complaint petition but also in the initial deposition as well as in the evidence of PW-1 which was recorded under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 24. It is evident that the petitioner resides in Mangaldai, Darrang, as indicated in the complaint petition, where the address is recorded as being within the same district. Additionally, the petitioner's two firms, M/s D & N Enterprise and M/s Heera Feed Stores, are also located in Mangaldai, Darrang. 24. It is evident that the petitioner resides in Mangaldai, Darrang, as indicated in the complaint petition, where the address is recorded as being within the same district. Additionally, the petitioner's two firms, M/s D & N Enterprise and M/s Heera Feed Stores, are also located in Mangaldai, Darrang. Given that the payment for the power tillers was made with a demand draft and the respondent No. 2 was requested to dispatch them by 20.03.2005, it is reasonable to infer that the power tillers were intended to be sent to the petitioner's recorded address in Mangaldai, as no alternative address is provided in the records 25. Hence, it is logical to infer that the power tillers were intended to be dispatched and delivered to the petitioner's address in Mangaldai. Merely stating that the delivery was to be arranged through the Guwahati office of M/s Shivdurga Finance and Investment Private Limited does not imply that the delivery itself was to occur in Guwahati, as the petitioner's address is explicitly recorded as being in Mangaldai. 26. Under such circumstances, where the accusations involve offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., cheating and criminal breach of trust, the facts stated in the complaint petition indicate that the respondent No. 2 allegedly cheated the petitioner by failing to deliver 40 power tillers despite receiving payment for them. Therefore, the non-delivery of the power tillers to the specified address constitutes an element of the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. Moreover, although the letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39 was not produced before the Trial Court or the Revisional Court, it appears that the complainant referred to this letter in his initial deposition under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as in the evidence before charge recorded under Section 244 of the Code. Considering that the role of the Criminal Court during proceedings under Sections 200 and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not purely adversarial but also inquisitorial, the court could have directed the production of the letter mentioned in the complaint petition and the testimony of PW-1. The complainant still has the opportunity to produce the letter at this stage. 28. The complainant still has the opportunity to produce the letter at this stage. 28. From the above discussion, it appears that respondent No. 2 was obligated to dispatch the power tillers to Mangaldai, and the failure to do so resulted in the petitioner not receiving the power tillers at his address in Mangaldai. This constitutes an ingredient of the alleged offences against respondent No. 2. Therefore, the offence is partly committed in Kolkata and partly in Mangaldai, and as such, it may be inquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over either of these local areas 29. Though, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that if any Magistrate, not being empowered by the law in his behalf, tries the offenders then such an irregularity is an irregularity which vitiates the proceedings and same has been provided under Section 461 (l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the said irregularity is also not saved under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of “Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana” (Supra), in this regard are relevant and therefore, quoted herein below: “35. It was specifically held by this Court in Raj Kumari Vijh [Raj Kumari Vijh v. Dev Raj Vijh, (1977) 2 SCC 190 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 294 : AIR 1977 SC 1101 ] that the question of jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court to try particular kinds of offences goes to the root of the matter and that any transgression of the same would make the entire trial void. However, territorial jurisdiction, according to this Court “is a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular court, the convenience of the accused … and the convenience of the witnesses who have to appear before the Court”. (SCC p. 194 para 7) 36. After making such a distinction between two different types of jurisdictional issues, this Court concluded in that case, that where a Magistrate has the power to try a particular offence, but the controversy relates solely to his territorial jurisdiction, the case would normally be covered by the saving clause under Section 531 of the 1898 Code (present Section 462 of the 1973 Code). 37. 37. From the above discussion, it is possible to take a view that the words “tries an offence” are more appropriate than the words “tries an offender” in Section 461(l). This is because, lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by Section 462 and hence Section 461, logically, could have included the trial of an offence by a Magistrate, not empowered by law to do so, as one of the several items which make the proceedings void. In contrast, the trial of an offender by a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, can be saved because of Section 462, provided there is no other bar for the court to try the said offender (such as in Section 27). But Section 461(l) makes the proceedings of a Magistrate void, if he tried an offender, when not empowered by law to do.” 30. It appears from the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that if an offender is tried by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, the trial is still protected under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, even if it is assumed that no part of the alleged offence occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge could not have set aside the order, as it is saved by the provisions of Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, in the instant case, as discussed here in above, there are materials to show that the power tillers were to be delivered to the petitioner at Mangaldai, Darrang. 31. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to press the ground of constructive res judicata raised in paragraph No. 10 of the petition, I deem it unnecessary to address the issue further. 32. For reasons discussed in foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the Court of learned Session Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai had not taken into consideration the materials on record as well as also did not consider the provision of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai erroneously. 33. 33. As a result, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldai, in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2022, and to restore the order dated 12.11.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, in C.R. Case No. 243 of 2014, wherein charges were framed against respondent No. 2 under Sections 420, 406, and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. 34. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to appear before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldai, on 24.02.2025 to face the trial. 35. This Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. 36. The Registry to send back the case records to the concerned courts from where they were requisitioned, along with a copy of this judgment. 37. Also send a copy of this judgment to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai for doing the needful.