ADIL NOSHIR MITHAIWALA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading upto filing of the present appeals are that the appellants have been arraigned as the accused persons in CC No. 392/2012 for the offences punishable under Ss. 420/406/408/409/477A read with Ss. 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pursuant to the complaint filed by respondent No.2 - M/s Asia Exchange Centre, which is a registered firm based in the United Arab Emirates through respondent No.4 - Anees Aravindakshan who was acting as the Power of Attorney Holder, since the complainant firm neither had any branch office in India, nor did it conduct any business in the country.

(2.) The short issue for consideration in the present appeals is as to whether the proceedings under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, followed by the issuance of process, can be sustained in the eye of law, in a case where the same issue was previously raised and adjudicated on by both the civil and criminal Courts in a foreign country and have attained finality.

(3.) In the present case, for the same alleged offence, the private respondents who have not appeared before us, despite notice having been served, had earlier invoked both the civil and criminal jurisdiction in the United Arab Emirates.