Magistrate not bound to forward complaints lacking territorial jurisdiction or disclosing purely commercial disputes.

The Petitioner, an NRI residing in the USA, filed a criminal revision against an order by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, which dismissed his application under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Petitioner alleged that while staying in Baroda, he met the accused, who later induced him via communication to the USA to invest approximately Rs. 87.22 lakhs in cryptocurrency.

The Petitioner sought a direction to the Cyber Crime Wing, Avadi, to register an FIR, claiming jurisdiction based on the respondent’s residence and office addresses in Chennai.

The Magistrate dismissed the plea, citing a lack of territorial jurisdiction and the commercial nature of the dispute.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s Court at Poonamallee possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when the initial meeting and subsequent persuasion occurred outside its local limits

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed a cognizable criminal offense warranting a direction to register an FIR under the BNSS

The Court primarily applied Section 197 of the BNSS (formerly Section 177 CrPC), which mandates that every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

The Court further relied on the established judicial principle that a Magistrate is not a "mere post office" and must apply judicial mind to verify jurisdiction and the nature of the offense—distinguishing between civil/commercial transactions and criminal acts—before directing the registration of an FIR.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s own pleadings showed the initial acquaintance occurred in Baroda, and the alleged fraudulent inducement took place while the Petitioner was in the United States.

Consequently, no part of the res gestae or the act of persuasion occurred within the local jurisdiction of the Poonamallee Magistrate.

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent's mere residential address in Chennai was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 197 BNSS.

Furthermore, analyzing the merits, the Court found that the transaction appeared to be a commercial investment in cryptocurrency that failed to yield returns, rather than a prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

The Court affirmed that the Magistrate correctly exercised judicial discretion in identifying the matter as civil in nature.

The Court confirmed that the Poonamallee Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged acts and that the complaint failed to disclose a criminal offense, characterizing it instead as a commercial dispute.

The order of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, in C.M.P.No.1491 of 2025 was upheld.