( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. challenging the validity of orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 29th November, 2003 and 15th January, 2004 and praying that these two orders be quashed. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that on 25th November, 2003 at 1. 35 a. m. in the night, an FIR No. 498/2003 was registered under Section 408/34 IPC at P. S. New Friends Colony at the instance of Nischal Kumar Punj authorised signatory of M/s Call Centre consulting and Training Solution Private Limited making allegations that Ahmad jamal, Chief Operations Officer of the complainant company. It was alleged that he was bound by an agreement of maintaining the confidentiality of the company but he left the services of the company and continued to retain the entire confidential information / business secrets / records / computer programmes and data of the complainant company. The complainant alleged that Ahmad Jamal had misused his position in the company by selling confidential and essential information to M/s Supportscape India Pvt. Ltd. and its people for money. When the complainant confronted Ahmad Jamal with breach of confidentiality condition and sale of secret data of the complainant company, he threatened the complainant's attorney and went underground without informing the complainant company. He did not handover the Laptop, credit card and mobile phone of the company in contravention of conditions of his employment. ( 3 ) AFTER registration of this FIR, police immediately came into action and went to Jaipur where Ahmad Jamal was staying. Police conducted a raid with the help of local police in Jaipur and brought Ahmad Jamal, Manoj Goel and one Ted John Bose to Delhi. They were confronted with officials of the complainant company in Delhi. Ahmad Jamal produced the credit card of the complainant company and the same was seized. After interrogation, they were relieved from the investigation and Ahmad Jamal was asked to bring the Laptop of the complainant company. ( 4 ) ON 28th November, 2003 complainant company filed a complaint before the Court of ACMM which was marked to the Metropolitan Magistrate on 29th november, 2003. On 29th November, 2003 MM passed following order: Case No. 668/1 m/s. Call Centre Consulting v. Ahmad Jamal and Ors. 29. 11. ( 4 ) ON 28th November, 2003 complainant company filed a complaint before the Court of ACMM which was marked to the Metropolitan Magistrate on 29th november, 2003. On 29th November, 2003 MM passed following order: Case No. 668/1 m/s. Call Centre Consulting v. Ahmad Jamal and Ors. 29. 11. 2003 Present : Sh. Nischal K. Punj Complainant's a. R. with Mr. D. P. Singh and sh. Ashwin Counsels fresh complaint received. It be checked and registered. Heard, it is submitted that FIR No. 498/03 has been registered in P. S. NFC on 25. 11. 03. U/s 408/34 IPC. It has been submitted that fact of the case have not been appreciated by IO/sho. It is submitted that there is violation of Section 66 of Information and technology Act, 2000. In the circumstances the status report be called from the sho P. S. NFC. IO shall also with the progress report/case file of the said case i. e. FIR No. 498/03. An affidavit is also filed stating that accused No. 1 ahmad Jamal is likely to leave country. Copy of the complaint and other documents including this affidavit be also sent to SHO for necessary action as requested. Copy of this order be given dasti to the complainant. SHO will ensure that the offenders will not leave the country. Dasti. Put up on 3. 12. 03 sd/-MM/ 29. 11. 03 ( 5 ) THE order was modified by the learned MM on 15th January, 2004 which reads as under: fir No. 498/03 15. 1. 04 Present: Mr. M. S. Bhutalia Proxy Counsel for d. P. Singh, Advocate complainant is exempted for today. Anil Aggarwal present on behalf of complainant. SI R. B. Singh present who submits that progress has been made. Heard. The allegations in the complaint pertains to Information Technology Act, 2000 and as per section-78. The police official not below the rank of DSP can investigate an offence under the Act. Copy of this order be sent to the DCP south for necessary action. Copy shall be served dasti by the SI R. B. Singh/sho. The IO shall file the report/status report investigation/action taken in the FIR no. 498/03 and the IO appointed as per law U/s 78 shall appear on the next date with report. Put up on 7. 2. 04. Copy shall be served dasti by the SI R. B. Singh/sho. The IO shall file the report/status report investigation/action taken in the FIR no. 498/03 and the IO appointed as per law U/s 78 shall appear on the next date with report. Put up on 7. 2. 04. Sd/-MM/nd ( 6 ) AS a result of the order passed by the learned MM, a Look Out call (LOC) was got issued by police in the name of Ahmad Jamal to ensure that he should not leave the country. On 13th January, 2004, in response to this LOC ahmad Jamal was detained at IGI Airport when he returned from USA. The prosecution brought him to Police Station and interrogated him and seized the laptop and mobile phone produced by him. He was relieved after the interrogation. ( 7 ) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that once an fir had already been registered in respect of the offence, the order passed by the learned MM was illegal and contrary to the principles of law. Learned MM, even if had directed for investigation, could not have asked the SHO to issue a look Out Call (LOC) or not allow the petitioner to leave the country. The order of the learned MM transferring investigation to DSP was also illegal. Learned mm was not authorised to transfer the investigation under Section 156 (3) of the code. The Magistrate could have only asked for investigation into the complaint however, since an FIR was already there even that should not have been done. ( 8 ) A perusal of complaint would show that complainant disclosed that FIR No. 498/2003 was already registered under Section 408/34 IPC but the complaint contended that complaint disclosed commission of an offence under information Technology Act but police did not register FIR under Information technology Act. Respondent Ahmad Jamal was a foreign national and it was likely that he would flee away from India with stolen material. ( 9 ) IT is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that Magistrate had no power to give direction for investigation by officer of particular rank or level. Reliance is placed on 2001 (1) JCC [delhi] 16 Mr. Ajay Raj Sharma v. State, wherein this Court held that MM had no authority in law to transfer further investigation to any other agency. Reliance is placed on 2001 (1) JCC [delhi] 16 Mr. Ajay Raj Sharma v. State, wherein this Court held that MM had no authority in law to transfer further investigation to any other agency. ( 10 ) IT is true that normally investigation should not be transferred from one agency to the other agency and the Court should not interefere in the investigation or transfer investigation or order further investigation without there being cogent and serious reasons. However, in the present case, Magistrate has not transferred the investigation. A perusal of order dated 15th January, 2004 of the learned MM would show that the learned MM observed that since complaint pertained to an offence under Information technology Act, Section 78 of the Act provided that an officer not below the rank of DSP had to investigate such an offence. He therefore, directed that the investigation be done by the Officer of a rank of DSP. The order of learned MM is in consonance with Information Technology Act and does not amount to ordering transfer of investigation. The learned MM in his wisdom considered that the offence involved was under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act and passed the order accordingly. Thus, this order is not beyond the jurisdiction of the MM. Even if, learned MM had not passed the order dated 15th January, 2004, the order dated 29th November, 2003 itself was sufficient to ensure that the investigation should be done by an Officer of DSP Level. However, part of the order of the learned MM, whereby he directed the SHO that the ?offenders should not leave the country? was beyond jurisdiction. While the learned MM had jurisdiction to order investigation into the complaint, he had no jurisdiction to direct that a particular person should not be allowed to leave the country at the time of asking police to initiate investigation in a complaint. Once an FIR is registered and the investigating agency feels that a person may flee from the country or may try to go abroad, the investigating agency alone would decide what steps are necessary. If the investigating agency considers it necessary that LOC be issued, it shall act accordingly. Once an FIR is registered and the investigating agency feels that a person may flee from the country or may try to go abroad, the investigating agency alone would decide what steps are necessary. If the investigating agency considers it necessary that LOC be issued, it shall act accordingly. The MM who had simply received the complaint and did not know about the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint could not have jumped to the conclusion that a person should be stopped from leaving the country because that would hamper the investigation. The order of the learned MM dated 29th November, 2003 to the extent that ?sho will ensure that the offenders will not leave the country? is therefore quashed and rest of the order is maintained being not illegal.