Criminal Complaint Cannot Be Sustained For Issues Finally Adjudicated In Foreign Country : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that a private criminal complaint is not sustained in the eyes of the law when, on the same issue, both the civil and criminal proceedings have been initiated in a foreign country, and the same has attained finality. Holding that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of law, it accordingly quashed it.A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made these observations in a case where the appellant was aggrieved after the Respondent- Asia Exchange Centre, a registered firm in the United Arab Emirates, filed a criminal private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the respondent did not have any office or branch in India, the actions were initiated through its power of attorney holder, Anees Aravindaksha. The appellant was accused under Sections 420/406/408/409/477A read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with others. When the matter came before the Court, the private respondents did not appear despite the notice, and it was informed that they had already invoked both the civil and criminal jurisdiction in UAE. Both of their actions were dismissed, but they chose not to reveal this information while invoking the criminal jurisdiction in India. On this, the Court contemplated whether the proceedings under Article 200 CrPC can be sustained on the same issue when the same has been dealt with in a foreign jurisdiction and attained finality.Answering this, the Court said: "Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be an abuse of process of law as certainly, it would amount to double jeopardy. The private respondents, after initiating an action on their own in a different country and having concealed the dismissal of the criminal complaint and the appeal thereafter, along with the dismissal of the suit filed by them, cannot file the subject complaint, that too through a Power of Attorney holder."The bench also observed that it is a well-settled principle of law that an agent can't depose in favour of the principal with respect to facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of the principal, as stated in M/s Naresh Potteries v. M/s Aarti Industries (2025).Considering all this, the Court finally said: "Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the proceedings initiated by the private respondents are nothing but an abuse of process of law. Perhaps, that is the reason why they have chosen not to appear before this Court, despite notice having been served. Therefore, the proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 392/2012, titled, 'Asia Exchange Center v. Sonia Gobind Gidwani and Another' stand quashed."Case Details: ADIL NOSHIR MITHAIWALA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.|Criminal Appeal No(s). 627/2017Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1201Click Here To Read OrderAppearances: For Appellant(s) Mr. Atma Ram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Chawla, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pratap, AOR Mr. Aamir Khan, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Chadha, Adv. Mr. Muhammad Maroof, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.

Criminal Complaint Cannot Be Sustained For Issues Finally Adjudicated In Foreign Country : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags