116 of 2008.
Both the companyplainant and the accused companypany have been dealing with one another by way of companytractual agreement and a MOU dt.
05/08/05 was entered between them as alleged in the companyplaint.
Suffice it to say that by reason of an order dated 7.02.2008, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in whose companyrt the aforementioned companyplaint petition was transferred, refused to direct investigation in the matter by the Station House Officer in terms of Section 156 3 of the Code, stating In the present case all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the companyplainant.
Whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code can pass an order in absence of the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
