Judgment :- This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in the private complaint. 2. The appellant herein is a pawn broker having a shop at Kotagiri, Nilgiris District. According to the appellant, on 10.5.1990, A1 to A5/respondents herein approached him and represented that they are prepared to sell the tea factory at Jakkanarai village and after some negotiations, the price was fixed as Rs.17 lakhs. Thereafter, on 24.5.1990, accused Nos.1 to 5 came with Exs.P.1 and P.2 documents pertaining to the tea factory and Exs.P.3 and P.4, the plans of the tea factory and handed over to appellant herein. Believing their representation that they are the owners of the tea factory and they are prepared to sell the tea factory for Rs.17 lakhs, an agreement was prepared by the appellant herein and after paying Rs.15 lakhs in cash, he obtained the signatures of accused Nos.1 to 5. The balance of Rs.2 lakhs was to be paid within one month and the sale deed was to be executed within one month from that date. Since no sale deed was executed, a notice was issued by the appellants through their advocate on 18.6.1990 calling upon the accused/respondents herein to execute the sale deed. To that, Ex.P.8 was the reply sent by the accused wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement and also have stated that only A4 and A5 were the partners in the tea factory, which belonged to a partnership firm and A1 to A3 had nothing to do with them. The three other partners of the firm issued Ex.P.9 notice. They also denied the execution of the alleged agreement. Therefore, the appellant herein filed a private complaint before the Court after following the procedure laid down under Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The complaint was registered and charges were framed; the witnesses were examined and thereafter the Magistrate, who tried the case, convicted the accused No.1 to 5 finding them guilty of the charge under Section 420 IPC. The learned trial Judge imposed sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Apart from that, the Magistrate also passed an order for payment of compensation to the complainant directly. He directed accused Nos.1 to 5 to pay Rs.3 lakhs each as compensation, which comes to Rs.15 lakhs, the sum alleged to have been paid by the appellant herein. 4. Apart from that, the Magistrate also passed an order for payment of compensation to the complainant directly. He directed accused Nos.1 to 5 to pay Rs.3 lakhs each as compensation, which comes to Rs.15 lakhs, the sum alleged to have been paid by the appellant herein. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused/respondents herein filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court acquitted all the accused of the charges under Section 420 IPC on the ground that the stamp paper in which the alleged agreement was written was purchased one year prior to the date of the agreement. Therefore, the Appellate Court thought it was not a genuine document. The Appellate Court also said that more than Rs.10,000/- cannot be given by cash as per the Income Tax laws. Therefore, the payment of Rs.15 lakhs by cash was not believed by the Appellate Court. Further, D.W.1, the Finger Print expert has stated that the thumb impression found in the alleged agreement Ex.P.5 is not the thumb impression of A.1. Therefore, since the appellant has come to the Court with a forged document, the entire complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Against that acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Asokan appearing for the appellant submitted that Ex.P.5 agreement contains the signature of the accused No.1 to 5. In Ex.P.8 reply sent to the notice sent by the accused, it has been stated that the accused were coerced to sign the document. Even according to the notice, A1 was forced to sign the document. The counsel submitted, that this proves the fact that accused 1 to 5 had signed the agreement. Therefore, the present defence that they did not sign the agreement is only an after thought and therefore not true. According to the counsel, the appellant has proved that accused Nos.1 to 5 had signed Ex.P.5. The counsel further submitted that if really they were forced to sign the document or they signed the document under coercion, they would have immediately preferred a complaint to the police or approached the Court to set aside the document. No such step was even taken by the accused for two months. Only after the complainant issued legal notice, the accused came forward with this explanation. Therefore, that cannot be accepted as true and acted upon. No such step was even taken by the accused for two months. Only after the complainant issued legal notice, the accused came forward with this explanation. Therefore, that cannot be accepted as true and acted upon. Therefore, the signatures are proved by the appellant herein. Further, the first Appellate Court has held the agreement as not true on the ground that the stamp papers were purchased one year prior to the actual date of agreement. This defence was not taken by the accused themselves. In such circumstances, the Court should not have relied on that fact. Further, Exs.P.1 to P.4 were delivered by the accused. It was not denied in their statement. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the mere fact that the accused 1 to 5 have signed in Ex.P.5 is an admission of having received the amount in cash. The Court cannot go beyond that in a criminal case in which the accused are said to have committed offence under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, the judgment of the first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the trial Court judgment has to be restored. 7. The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Ex.P.7 notice was issued by the complainant/appellant. Immediately, a reply was given under Ex.P.8 wherein it has been specifically denied that no such agreement was entered into and they also denied having signed the document. They have categorically stated that they have a business transaction for a quite some time and in that process, signatures in blank papers including stamp papers were obtained by the complainant. That was made use of by the complainant to prepare this document. The other three partners, who are not parties to this agreement, have also sent another notice Ex.P.9 stating that the accused herein were not having the right to sell he properties as it belonged to partnership firm. Further, D.W.1, the handwriting/fingerprint expert on comparing the fingerprints found in Ex.P.5 with the fingerprints of A1 taken in the open Court, has stated that the fingerprints in Ex.P.5 are not that of A1. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P.5 is a forged document. 9. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that when a person approaches the Court playing fraud on the Court, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P.5 is a forged document. 9. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that when a person approaches the Court playing fraud on the Court, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. For this proposition, the counsel placed reliance on the decision in of S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH reported in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853, wherein it has been held as follows: "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party." Therefore, in this case, it has been proved that the appellant approached the Court with forged document, thereby committed fraud on the Court as well as on the respondents. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected on that sole ground. 10. The counsel further submitted that P.W.1 admitted in evidence that the accused/respondents herein gave them the documents relating to the property as well as the encumbrance certificate. The complainant ought to have seen all the documents, after satisfying himself wants to purchase the property and thereafter he agreed to purchase the property ie., he has also seen the encumbrance certificate. If encumbrance certificate is seen, that would contain the names of the real owners of the property. When that be the case, it is not correct to say that the accused made false representation and thereby induced the complainant to part with a sum of 15,00,000/- of rupees. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be said to have been committed even assuming that representation was made by the accused. 11. The case of the complainant is that he met the accused for the first time only on 10.5.1990. He has admitted in evidence that prior to that, he never met them. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be said to have been committed even assuming that representation was made by the accused. 11. The case of the complainant is that he met the accused for the first time only on 10.5.1990. He has admitted in evidence that prior to that, he never met them. But in the complaint, there is no mention of meeting the accused on 10.5.1990. Even in Ex.P.7 notice, the meeting of accused on 10.5.1990 is not mentioned. But only in evidence, it is stated that he met the accused originally on 10.5.1990 and for the second time, he met on 24.5.1990. Therefore, to this extent, the evidence that the accused met P.W.1 on 10.5.1990 is not true. When that be the case, on the very first day, the accused met on 24.5.1990 and all the accused represented that they are willing to sell the property and on the very same day, the complainant also accepted to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.17,000/- is very difficult to accept since according to the complainant, on the very same day, the Ex.P.5 agreement was executed and signed. 12. The lower Appellate Court has pointed out that the stamp paper in which the Ex.P.5 agreement was written was purchased one year prior to the date of agreement. Therefore, it creates a doubt as to whether the agreement was written in the manner spoken to by P.W.1. This finding has some force. It cannot be ignored as contended by the counsel for the appellant herein. According to the respondents herein, some of them had some transactions with the complainant earlier and during that process, the complainant obtained signatures in blank stamp papers and that was used for the purpose of fabricating Ex.P.5, which cannot be rejected in toto. 13. Further, from the evidence of D.W.1, the handwriting/fingerprint expert, it is proved that the thumb impression found in Ex.P.5 is not that of A1. Therefore, taking all these things into account, it appears that the Ex.P.5 has not come into existence in the manner spoken to by the complainant. That apart, Ex.P.5 has been found to be forged, in the sense, that the thumb impression of A1 is not the real thumb impression. Therefore, it has to be considered as a fabricated document and hence a forged document. That apart, Ex.P.5 has been found to be forged, in the sense, that the thumb impression of A1 is not the real thumb impression. Therefore, it has to be considered as a fabricated document and hence a forged document. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above, the complaint has to be rejected. 14. There is yet another point to be considered. The case of the complainant is Rs.15 lakhs was paid immediately on the very first day when the accused met the complainant and entire amount was paid in cash. There is no evidence except Ex.P.5 to prove the factum of payment of the amount. No records have been produced to prove that payment, especially when the receipt of amount is denied by the accused. Even the payment of Rs.15 lakhs has not been proved before this Court. The first appellate Court has taken a view on the basis of the evidence available on record that the charge levelled against the accused was not proved. That conclusion arrived at by the first Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. It is possible for any Court to arrive at such a conclusion. Since it is an appeal against acquittal and the lower Appellate Court has taken one view, which is possible on the basis of evidence, this Court cannot set aside that in appeal against acquittal. Hence, the appeal against acquittal is dismissed.