JUDGMENT : 1. While special leave petition (criminal) No. 1370 of 1986 and writ petition (criminal) No. 363 of 1986 were pending in this Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4164 of 1986 was moved by the union of India for action under Section 340. of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court on April 29, 1987, dismissed the special leave petition and the writ petition with costs defering passing of final orders on the criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The reason for such deferral was that this Court had been apprised that the C.B.I. was said to be engaged in making a thorough investigation of the matter so that suitable action could be taken against all the perpetrators of the fraudulent acts and the offenses. This Court otherwise had come to opine that the present was a fit case in which the named four persons who were parties to the litigation and all other persons responsible for fabrication of false evidence should be prosecuted for the offenses committed by them. As a cautionary step, prosecution was withheld to be launched against the said persons at that stage because it could lead to a premature closure of the investigation resulting in the C.B.I. being unable to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy. The C.B.I. all the same was directed to submit its report to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for necessary action. it is the Union of India which has placed the C.B.I. report before us in which the involvement of two other persons, not parties to the earlier litigation, has also been recommended. Thereupon this Court issued a joint notice on 27.2.1992 to the six persons afore-referred to and today the matter is placed before us for passing final orders in the criminal miscellaneous petition. 2. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel ; appearing for the four persons involved in the litigation, namely, Mohan Lal Jatia, Pushpa Devi Jatia, Ashok Jatia and Ashok Jain has submitted that the matter has become stale and would become staler if at this stage this Court orders a criminal complaint to be filed in terms of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Instead he says, it would be a retrograde step. He further states that unless his clients are permitted to file objections against the C.B.I. report, no final action is warranted. Instead he says, it would be a retrograde step. He further states that unless his clients are permitted to file objections against the C.B.I. report, no final action is warranted. We regret in differing from Mr. Jain. This Court would have straightway ordered filing of the complaint while disposing of the special leave petition and the writ petition on 29.4.1987, had it not been apprised that the C.B.I. had been put to job to investigate the matter which led this Court a few days later on 1.5.87 to direct the C.B.I. to submit its report to the Union of India. This Court. did not solicit any report from the C.B.I., but it only took care at that stage that it should not pre-empt the C.B.I. by making a complaint. That was the reason for deferral of the action. Now since it appears that besides the clients of Mr. Jain, two others, namely, Milap Chand Jagotra and Gurcharan Singh employees of the President's House, New Delhi appear to be involved therein and who have been served before taking final action and remain. unrepresented, there is no hurdle in the way of this Court to finalise the matter. We thus order the Registrar General of this Court to prepare a complaint as expeditiously as possible in-the light of all concerned orders in terms of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code and file it before a competent criminal court against the aforesaid six persons. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is thus allowed in these terms. The C.B.I. report may be put in a sealed cover and handed back to the learned counsel for the Union of India.