https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459887 A Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where the principal transaction and crucial parts of the alleged offence occurred in Mumbai, with relevant records also located there; the jurisdictional objection was therefore unsustainable. The complaint further contained specific averments linking the petitioners to alleged cheating and conspiracy, and at the stage of initiation the complainant was not required to plead every detail. The High Court's writ and inherent powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC had to be exercised sparingly, without a roving inquiry into evidence, so the complaint disclosed sufficient material to proceed and quashing was not warranted. en-us Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jan 2025 11:16:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459887 A Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where the principal transaction and crucial parts of the alleged offence occurred in Mumbai, with relevant records also located there; the jurisdictional objection was therefore unsustainable. The complaint further contained specific averments linking the petitioners to alleged cheating and conspiracy, and at the stage of initiation the complainant was not required to plead every detail. The High Court's writ and inherent powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC had to be exercised sparingly, without a roving inquiry into evidence, so the complaint disclosed sufficient material to proceed and quashing was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459887