### Territorial Jurisdiction Sustained Where Part of Transaction Occurred Within Local Area Despite Out-of-State Primary Offence

The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings in CR Case No. 40 of 2024 and the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the JMFC, Boko, taking cognizance for offences under Sections 408/420/120(B) of the IPC, Section 63 of the Copyright Act, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act.

The Respondent No. 2 (informant) alleged that Petitioner No. 2, a former employee, conspired with Petitioner No. 1 to steal the design of an indigenous surgical glove-manufacturing machine.

While the police initially submitted a final report due to "inadequate evidence" (FR No. 168 of 2023), the informant filed a protest petition leading to the current complaint case.

The petitioners challenged the proceedings primarily on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and malicious prosecution.

1. Whether the Court of JMFC, Boko, Kamrup, possessed the territorial jurisdiction to inquire into and try the alleged offences given that the petitioners' factory is located in Rajasthan.

2. Whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance and issuing summons based on the complaint and statements of the witnesses.

Section 177 of the CrPC (Section 197 BNSS), which dictates that offences shall ordinarily be tried by a court in whose local jurisdiction the act was committed.

Section 178 of the CrPC (Section 198 BNSS), which allows for trial in any jurisdiction where an offence is committed partly in one area, is a continuing one, or consists of several acts done in different areas.

Principles from Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, establishing that summoning is a serious matter requiring the Magistrate to carefully scrutinize evidence to determine if a prima facie case is made out.

The court rejected the petitioners' argument regarding territorial jurisdiction. It noted that according to the complainant and witnesses (CW1, CW2, CW3), the machine's design—the intellectual property in question—was developed and operated within the jurisdiction of Boko, Assam, where Petitioner No. 2 was employed.

Since part of the "cause of action" (the access to and alleged theft of the design) occurred in Assam, the jurisdiction under Section 178 CrPC was validly invoked.

Regarding the merits, the court found that the Magistrate had complied with the standards in Sujoy Ghosh; the depositions of the three witnesses consistently alleged that Petitioner No. 2 stole the design and shared it with Petitioner No. 1, who launched a replica machine in Rajasthan.

These statements provided sufficient prima facie material for the Magistrate to issue summons, notwithstanding the prior police final report.

It further held that the impugned order reflected proper application of mind to the prima facie evidence presented during the Section 200/202 CrPC inquiry.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the order dated 21.08.2024, dismissed the criminal petition, and vacated the stay on the trial court proceedings.