ORDER : C.KUMARAPPAN, J. The present Criminal Revision Case arises as against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, in C.M.P.No.1491 of 2025, dated 08.01.2026, whereby the application filed under Section 173 of BNSS , seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Avadi Police Station, to register an FIR upon the complaint dated 23.12.2024, came to be dismissed. 2. According to the petitioner, he had an acquaintance with one Mr.Rajendrakumar, who was allegedly dealing with cryptocurrency. Even according to the complaint, the petitioner came into contact with him while he was staying at the ITC Welcome Group Hotel, Baroda. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to the United States of America. While he was in the USA, Mr.Rajendrakumar contacted him and induced him to invest initially a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs, promising returns of Rs.1 crore within a short period. Thereafter, based on such misrepresentation, the petitioner transferred a sum of Rs.87,22,597/- to Mr Rajendrakumar on various dates. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had transferred the said amounts to M/S Jessica Traders, in which Mr.Rajendrakumar was a responsible person. The office address at Kodambakkam and his residence at Ayyappanthangal comes within the respondent jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the complaint is maintainable before the Cyber Crime Police at Chennai. 3. However, the learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint, concluded that the occurrence had not taken place within the local jurisdiction of the Poonamallee Court, and therefore refused to forward the complaint. The learned Magistrate also found that the nature of the allegations found in the complaint disclosed nothing but a commercial transaction. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate had not taken into consideration the place of residence of the respondent, as well as the company address. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate had passed a cryptic order without giving a reason, in spite of the fact that certain elements of the offence had occurred in India and within the jurisdiction of the Poonamallee Magistrate Court. The learned counsel would further submit that when the offences alleged were partly committed in India, and partly committed abroad, the Courts in India will have jurisdiction. The learned counsel would further submit that when the offences alleged were partly committed in India, and partly committed abroad, the Courts in India will have jurisdiction. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that without considering the available ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust, dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate is erroneous. Hence, he prayed for the interference of the impugned order. 5. The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and would submit that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Revision Case. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. 7. I have perused the complaint of the petitioner. According to the allegation in the complaint, admittedly, the complainant came into contact with the proposed accused one Mr.Rajendrakumar at Baroda. Thereafter, the complainant returned to the United States of America. While he was in the USA, he was allegedly persuaded by the said Rajendrakumar to invest in cryptocurrency and, based on such persuasion, the complainant had invested to the tune of Rs. 87,22,597/-. The complaint further states that, the respondent had neither paid any interest nor transferred any cryptocurrency to him. 8. From the above narration, two aspects arise for our consideration. Firstly, the petitioner had met the said Rajendrakumar at Baroda, and thereafter left India and was residing in the United States of America. Both are outside the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. Secondly, there are no materials placed before the Court to show that the alleged persuasion of the said Rajendrakumar had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate concerned. Apart from that, a plain reading of the complaint would disclose only a commercial transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 197 of BNSS , wherein it has been clearly stipulated that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the present case, the original acquaintance admittedly took place at Baroda, besides there is no material to show that the subsequent persuasion had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, except the fact that the respondent is stated to have an address at Chennai. 10. In the present case, the original acquaintance admittedly took place at Baroda, besides there is no material to show that the subsequent persuasion had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, except the fact that the respondent is stated to have an address at Chennai. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, categorically held that a Magistrate is not a mere post office to simply forward every complaint to the police for registration of FIR and that it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his judicial mind. In the present case, after such application of judicial mind, the learned Magistrate has concluded that the matter is civil in nature and that there are no materials to show the commission of the alleged offence within his local jurisdiction of the court concerned. The above conclusion is in accordance with law and on facts. 11. In view of the above detailed discussion, and on a careful reading of the impugned order, this Court does not find any perversity. 12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.