The court clarified the jurisdiction of Indian courts to entertain complaints for offences committed outside India and emphasized that the requirement of sanction under section 188 Cr.P.C. is necessary at the stage of trial and not a condition precedent for taking cognizance.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.Shekhar learned counsel for the complainant and AGA and have been taken through the record.

By means of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in Complaint case no. 392 of 2012 (Asia Exchange Centre Versus Sonia Gobind Gidwani and another) under section 406/420/408/409/477A/120B/34 IPC whereof cognizance has been taken by the learned A.C.J.M.III Gautambudh Nagar vide order dated 5.5.2012.

The fact of the case emanating from the prosecution in a short conspectus is that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.4 holding Power of Attorney on behalf of the opposite party no.3 Ali Omran Salim Alowais who is proprietor of M/s Exchange Centre having its office at 904, 9th Floor, Twin Tower Building, Abdul Naser Square, Diera, Dubai U.A.E. The aforesaid firm is a licencee by virtue of licence issued by the Central Bank of U.A.E bearing its Commercial Licence No. 232142 and Registry No. 29076 issued by the Department of Economic Development of Dubai. The complainant is engaged in the business of buying and selling foreign currencies, travellers sheets against foreign currencies, executing transfer transactions of local and foreign currencies etc. in U.A.E. and other parts of the world. Ms. Sonia Gobind Gidwani (applicant no.1) is an Indian national approached the complainant in the year 2001 representing herself as one of the reputed finance and currency trader in India namely Centrum Goup and projected herself as most distinguished and eminent person in Indian Business Circle. It was divulged by the applicant no.1 that Centrum Group was consisting of so many companies including that of Centrum Investment Ltd. Centrum Capital Ltd. Centrum Direct Ltd. and is engaged in diversified financial services including foreign exchange traveller's sheets, foreign currency, stocks, debentures and various other financial activities. The applicant no.1 impressed the complainant portraying her vast experience & knowledge in the field of market planning, business development, marketing project & operation, management in the Money Exchange Industry. The applicant no.1 tried to convince that on account of her vast experience of planning & strategies she would augment and accelerate his business in Dubai and other parts of the word which will yield high return and immense profit. On the persuasion of the applicant no.1, the complainant appointed her as consultant/business development associate at the fixed remuneration. The applicant no.1 assured that she will make her best efforts towards overall growth and will carry out her fiduciary responsibilities with full devotion and dedication. The applicant no.1 won over the confidence of the complainant for putting more working capital so as to flourish business expansion. The complainant was fully assured by the applicant no.1 that in the event of putting more working capital, she will explore profitable business by virtue of extensive contracts, net work and good nexus in the business world.

The applicant no.2 being an Indian national was working with the said Centrum Group since long time. It was delineated that the applicant no.2 was a Senior Management Executive having vast experience & knowledge in Money Exchange Industry including framing of policy & accounting procedure, marketing, planning, operations & management. The applicant no.2 represented himself as a core team member of Centrum Group to which the applicant no.1 was associated. In the guise of displaying good description and assurance, the applicants succeeded in instilling congenial atmosphere in the eyes of the complainant. The accused applicants won trust of the complainant with respect of the management and control of the company therefore, the accused applicants were entrusted the properties and assets of the complainant company and were having dom