JUDGMENT : 1. This Crl.M.P. is filed to make an inquiry in the interest of justice, into the matter of deceptive introduction of a forged document, i.e. lease deed mentioned as Item No.1 in the typed set of papers, to get a favourable order in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, call for the original records of C.C.No.439 of 2008 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and record a finding and direct any officer of the Court as this Court deems fit and proper to prefer a complaint before any competent authority or Court for the offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 463, 464, 465, 469, 470 and 471 IPC, as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the petitioner is that there was a private complaint against the respondent-Srinath Rajam for various offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC filed on 03.11.2008 for having collected a sum of Rs.71 lakhs from sub-tenants and misappropriating the said amount. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur took cognizance of the complaint and having satisfied that prima-face case is made out, assigned number to the complaint in C.C.No.439 of 2008 and issued summons on 08.12.2008 to the accused, calling upon him to face the trial and answer the charges against him. The accused has not appeared before the Court below, inspite of the issuance of summons and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on 29.12.2008 and on appearance and filing a petition to recall the warrant, the same was recalled on 21.04.2009. Thereafter, a petition to quash the said complaint pending in C.C.No.439 of 2008, was filed by the respondent/accused before this Court on 19.02.2010 being Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 11.02.2016 passed in the said Crl.O.P., has quashed the said complaint in C.C.No.439 of 2008, having come to the conclusion that the documents produced discloses only civil transaction. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent has fabricated and tampered the forged documents with an intention to use the same as evidence in the Court. The respondent/accused, who is the Director of Sunco Machines Ltd., approached the petitioner to lease the property measuring 46,000 Sq.Ft. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent has fabricated and tampered the forged documents with an intention to use the same as evidence in the Court. The respondent/accused, who is the Director of Sunco Machines Ltd., approached the petitioner to lease the property measuring 46,000 Sq.Ft. together with open space at developed Plot Nos.67, 68 and 72 at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai to him for a period of ten years at the rate of Rs.2,79,600/- per month, with escalation of 5% per annum as rent, payable on or before 7th of every English calendar month. It is also stated that there is a clause to sub-let the property and to pay the rent for the same after collecting the rent from the sub-tenants as well. The agreement was reduced into writing in non-judicial stamp papers and a set of four stamp papers at the face value of Rs.10/- each were brought from one Mr.KRV Rajesh Kumar in Serial Nos.7826, 7827, 7828 and 7829 on 06.01.2004 in the name of the accused and one set of agreement in the said Nos.7826 and 7827 was retained by the petitioner and the other set containing Nos.7828 and 7829 was given to the respondent. 4. It is further stated that the accused was irregular in paying the rent and hence, the petitioner was forced to cancel the lease agreement and that a rent control petition was filed for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2008 on 10.01.2008 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in which an ex-parte order was passed by the Court as the respondent in the said R.C.O.P. did not appear. Only when the sub-letters entered appearance, the petitioner came to know that the accused has collected rental money, advance and other amenities and had misappropriated and converted the same into his own. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private criminal complaint in C.C.No.439 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and set out all the facts of cheating and fraud committed on the petitioner with supporting documents and a copy of the lease deed and other copies were served on the respondent/accused. Believing the representation of the accused and relying on the documents, viz., the agreement before this Court, this Court, by order dated 11.02.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2008. Believing the representation of the accused and relying on the documents, viz., the agreement before this Court, this Court, by order dated 11.02.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2008. It is stated by the petitioner that he preferred appeal before the Supreme Court and at that time, he came to know that copy of the lease agreement dated 01.08.2005 produced by the respondent before this Court and referred to in paragraph 5 of the order dated 11.02.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, is not the genuine document and it is a forged one, deliberately introduced in the typed set of papers for the purpose of getting a favourable order from this Court. It is further stated that the copy of the document, i.e. the lease agreement produced in the Court in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 and the original lease agreement executed between the respondent/accused and the petitioner that was filed in the Rent Control proceedings, which is in possession of the petitioner, after the same was taken back on an application, which are not one and the same. 6. It is further stated by the petitioner that the lease agreement dated 01.08.2005 produced in the Court with the issue date 09.09.2005 of non-judicial stamp paper, much later than one month and 09 days, after the effective date of lease deed, viz., 01.08.2005, is not the original and the signature found in the copy is manipulated by using xerox techniques and the contents of the documents had been materially altered with dishonest intention, knowing fully well that such act would adversely affect the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has signed in only one lease agreement with the accused and the original lease deed is with the petitioner and the copy of the lease agreement produced by the respondent is totally different from the original. The petitioner has also stated that there are dis-similarities in the document produced by the complainant, namely the petitioner and the respondent/accused. The petitioner has also stated that there are dis-similarities in the document produced by the complainant, namely the petitioner and the respondent/accused. The petitioner has pointed out the discrepancies by means of tabular column, which is extracted below: Page/Sheet No. Original document in the custody of Mr.Krishna Kumar Sood and copy of the same produced as typed set along with the complaint in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur Forged document produced before this Court by Mr.Srinath Non-judicial stamp paper bearing Serial No.7826 dated 06.01.2004 Non-Judicial Stamp paper bearing Serial No.6185 dated 09.09.2005 Purchased from KRV Rajesh Kumar on behalf of Sunco, No.27, Sathyanarayana Avenue, Boat Club, Adyar Purchased from Suresh Kumar on behalf of Sunco, No.72, developed Plots, AIE, Ambattur Sheet No.1 Lease dated 01 August 2005 , by scoring out the typed dated 01 September 2005, in ink and attested by person who signed the agreement Lease deed date is shown in typed version as 1 August 2005 Sunco having its office at 27, Sathyanarayana Avenue, Boat Club, Adyar Sunco having its office at 72, Developed plots, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 58 Signature is well spaced out Signature is compacted Non-Judicial Stamp paper bearing Serial No.7827 dated 06.01.2004 Non-judicial Stamp Paper bearing Serial No.7829 dated 06.01.2004 Purchased from KRV Rajesh Kumar on behalf of Sunco Purchased from KRV Rajesh Kumar on behalf of Sunco which was in the possession of the accused was used to create a bogus document apparently Judicial Stamp paper bearing Serial No.7828 was removed Sheet No.2 The page ends with main II Clause (3) The page ends with main point II Clause (4) "the lessee shall have .... any other companies whatsoever" Rent escalation 5% per annum is agreed between the parties Sheet No.3 A plain green sheet, page Starts sub clause (4) "the lessee shall be responsible to pay the lessor" A plain green sheet, page starts sub-clause (4) "the lessee shall be responsible to pay the lessor" is omitted to suit the accused Starts with sub-clause 14 Starts with main point III Sheet No.4 Ends with Schedule "A" Ends with Schedule "B" Starts with Schedule "B" Starts with in Witnesses whereof Sheet No.5 Ends with all signatures Ends with all signatures 7. The petitioner further states that the lease deed is a dubious concoction having been made with a sinister object of getting a favourable order by playing trickery on the Court. The petitioner further states that the lease deed is a dubious concoction having been made with a sinister object of getting a favourable order by playing trickery on the Court. This is a case of deliberate and calculated misleading of the Court by intentional design, fraudulently introducing a document knowing fully well that it is not the original lease agreement signed between the parties, taking recourse by dubious means to insert paragraphs and phrases which were not found in the original contract, and is nothing but playing fraud on the Court and is an abuse of process of Court. The petitioner prayed that there should be enquiry in the interest of justice and that he prays that a complaint should be preferred before competent authority for the offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 463, 464, 465, 469, 470 and 471 IPC, as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 8. The respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that he is one of the Directors of M/s.Sunco Machines Limited and that criminal complaint has been lodged by the petitioner against the respondent as Director, under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC for misappropriating Rs.71 lakhs. He had been vehemently opposing the case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and that this Court has quashed the complaint in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 on 11.02.2016. The respondent deny that he had duped and mislead this Court for obtaining the above said order of quashing the complaint from this Court and that he has never signed in the document relied on by the petitioner and it was signed by one Captain Venkatesh. It is further stated that Captain Venkatesh signed various copies of lease agreement at the petitioner's insistence. The petitioner asked for the lease agreement to be executed in duplicate to facilitate the petitioner to avail financial assistance from various banking institutions and the petitioner had then forwarded the copies of the lease deed to be executed. 9. It is further stated by the respondent that what was executed by Captain Venkatesh was the copy provided by the petitioner himself and that the lease deeds were executed in the month of September 2005, but were super scribed with a prior date. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of the alleged forgery. 9. It is further stated by the respondent that what was executed by Captain Venkatesh was the copy provided by the petitioner himself and that the lease deeds were executed in the month of September 2005, but were super scribed with a prior date. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of the alleged forgery. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that there was subsequent document, which would establish the fact that the lease deeds were executed only in September 2005 irrespective of the date the petitioner chose to super scribe thereon. On 01.09.2005, Captain Venkatesh wrote a letter setting out the terms of negotiation of the lease. The petitioner has affixed his signature on the said letter dated 01.09.2005 in token of the acceptance of the same. It is further stated that the stamp paper bearing Sheet No.7828 and 7829 were given to M/s.Sunco Machines Ltd., which itself clearly proves that the petitioner was well aware of the context of the stamp paper sheet No.7829 and hence, there is no question of M/s.Sunco Machines Ltd. including or adding any word in their favour and there was no necessity for M/s.Sunco Machines Ltd. to either forge or manipulate the lease deed each and every page and paras of the lease deed. It is also stated that the petitioner did not whisper about the lease deed before this Court from 2010 till the case was disposed of. 10. It is further stated in the counter that all the documents filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, have no Court seal, which are now purported to be the lease deeds alleged to have been filed by the complainant. The petitioner has also obtained the certified photocopy of the documents now available before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, which shows that the documents do not bear the Court seal and therefore, only inescapable conclusion is that the documents now produced by the petitioner are not the documents that were filed along with the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur. The petitioner has not disowned the signature found in the documents which were produced by the petitioner to quash the proceedings. It is for the petitioner to explain as to how he has signed various agreements now produced in which the signature is not disputed. 11. The petitioner has not disowned the signature found in the documents which were produced by the petitioner to quash the proceedings. It is for the petitioner to explain as to how he has signed various agreements now produced in which the signature is not disputed. 11. The petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the respondent's contention that he never signed the lease agreement at any point of time and it was signed by one Captain Venkatesh alone, cannot stand either on facts or in law. The respondent being one of the Directors of M/s.Sunco Machines Ltd., is responsible and liable for all the acts done or caused to be done in the name of the said Company and he cannot evade from the responsibility by claiming that he was only an ordinary Director. Captain Venkatesh has signed the lease deed on the authority of the Resolution in the Board Meeting of M/s.Sunco Machines Ltd. and the respondent being Principal Officer and Authorised Signatory, must be well aware of the said Resolution, based on which, the said Captain Venkatesh has transacted all rental receipts and payments and also signed all the cheques received by the petitioner. 12. It is further stated by the petitioner in the rejoinder that the respondent is falsely alleging that Captain Venkatesh has signed various copies of lease document at the petitioner's insistence, as there is no necessity to get various copies signed and he signed two sets of computerised copy of Stamp Papers in Nos.7826 and 7827 for one set and in Nos.7828 and 7829 for the other copy, and the second set was given to the respondent. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner has obtained various lease deed copies in order to avail bank loan, is not correct. The respondent was desperate to sub-let the unoccupied vacant premises and a clause was asked to be incorporated in the lease deed by the respondent. This clause has been added and binding on the respondent to collect the rent from the sub-tenants and pay it to the less or. Even though the rent has been collected by the respondent from September 2007 to July 2008, the same was not paid to the less or. This clause has been added and binding on the respondent to collect the rent from the sub-tenants and pay it to the less or. Even though the rent has been collected by the respondent from September 2007 to July 2008, the same was not paid to the less or. The respondent has swindled the rental money collected from the sub-tenants for the premises occupied by the sub-tenants, for which, a separate suit has been filed as per the direction of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010. 13. According to the petitioner, in paragraph 4 of the Stamp Paper bearing Sl.No.7829, dated 06th January 2004, the sentence "without prior consent from Less or and shall be responsible to pay the rent to Less or" had been removed, which implies that whatever the rent collected from the sub-tenants, the same should be paid to the less or. It is further stated in the rejoinder that forgery and tampering the documents came to light only in July 2016, when a scrutiny of the case was carried out after the verdict of the Supreme Court on 02nd May 2016. 14. The respondent has filed reply affidavit denying the various averments made in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has also signed the lease deeds of Stamp Papers bearing Sl.Nos.7826 to 7829, which shows that the petitioner had knowledge about the contents of the Stamp Papers signed by him. 15. 14. The respondent has filed reply affidavit denying the various averments made in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has also signed the lease deeds of Stamp Papers bearing Sl.Nos.7826 to 7829, which shows that the petitioner had knowledge about the contents of the Stamp Papers signed by him. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contended that there is forgery committed by the respondent in tampering the documents as narrated by the petitioner in the Tabular Column extracted supra and that this Court will have to render a finding after perusing all the documents and direct the Officer of this Court or any other person to prefer a complaint before the competent authority for the various offences committed by the respondent/accused under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 463, 464, 465, 469, 470 and 471 IPC, as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph 4 of the Stamp Paper bearing Sl.No.7829, dated 06th January 2004, the sentence "without prior consent from Less or and shall be responsible to pay the rent to Less or" had been removed in order to enable the respondent and his Company to enrich themselves and that apart, it is forgery committed to mislead the Court, for which criminal action needs to be initiated. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submitted that the lease agreement that was available and given to him alone had been produced before this Court and there is no question of suppression of any fact, much less the one alleged by the petitioner. He further contended that at no point of time, it has been pointed out by the petitioner that either when Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 was heard by this Court, which was disposed of 11.02.2016 by this Court or before the Apex Court in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl).No.3356 of 2016, which was dismissed on 02.05.2016, wherein the order passed by this Court in the said Crl.O.P. had been confirmed, there was manipulation of records and forgery of documents and that it needs a strict scrutiny and action needs to be taken against the petitioner and that the cognizable offences had been made out against the petitioner and the petitioner is trying to introduce new documents in order to settle the score with the respondent. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent has not signed any of the documents and by no stretch of imagination he can be held responsible, as the respondent has not committed any offence, much less the one alleged by the petitioner. 17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 01.09.2005, addressed by the respondent's Company to the petitioner's Company, indicating the negotiation taken place between the petitioner and the respondent and both parties have signed on the bottom of the said letter dated 01.09.2005 and the lease agreement was executed only on 01.09.2005. Even though the copies of the lease agreements have been produced before this Court, it is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the lease deeds filed by the petitioner before the Criminal Court do not bear the Court seal and that whenever the documents are presented before Court, it will have a seal of the Court in each page. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner has admitted that he has signed only one lease agreement and that the petitioner has created a document and produced the same before the Criminal Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the document that is available with the petitioner containing No.6185, dated 09.09.2005 and No.7829, dated 06.01.2004, were produced before this Court and this Court, while going through the averments of the parties, came to the conclusion while disposing of Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 that the case is of civil nature. 18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that the Court has become "functus Officio", as the said order of this Court passed in the said Crl.O.P., has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the SLP mentioned supra, and that this Court's order has got merged with the order of the Supreme Court, and hence, this Court cannot adjudicate the issue on hand. The document filed before the Criminal Court does not have any seal and that a bird's eye view of the documents called for and scrutinised by this Court, would enlighten that the petitioner has no case, much less prima-facie case to substantiate his stand. The document filed before the Criminal Court does not have any seal and that a bird's eye view of the documents called for and scrutinised by this Court, would enlighten that the petitioner has no case, much less prima-facie case to substantiate his stand. In support of his submission that the prayer as such sought for by the petitioner in this petition is like reviewing the said order passed by this Court in the said Crl.O.P., as discussed supra, and the review is not maintainable before this Court under Section 362 Cr.P.C., learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (i) 2008 (3) SCC (Crl) 600 = 2008 (8) SCC 673 (State, rep. by DSP, SBCID, Chennai Vs. K.V.Rajendrdan and others), and the decision of this Court in the case of Then Indiya Tharaivazhi Pokkuvarathu Uzhiyargal Sangam, Rep. by its General Secretary, Chennai Vs. ACC Concrete Limited, Rep. by its Factory Manager and another in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in Crl.O.P.No.3194 of 2009, dated 26.03.2009. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Crl) 508 = 2013 (1) SCC 376 (Nazma Vs. Javed @ Anjum), in which, the Supreme Court, while exhaustively dealing with the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held that no review of an order is contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus-officio and cannot entertain the review petitions or miscellaneous applications, except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors. He also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (4) SCC 370 (Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah), wherein, the Supreme Court dealt with the powers of the Court under Sections 195(1)(b)(ii) and 340 Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gabriel, In re, reported in 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 82, wherein this Court dealt with the registration of the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and investigation of the offence under Section 157 Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1974 L.W. (Crl) 190 (Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re), wherein a Division Bench of this Court dealt with Section 154 Cr.P.C. 19. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents produced before the Criminal Court were only xerox copies and that the contention of the respondent that the respondent cannot be made as a party to the proceedings, may not be correct, as the complaint before the Criminal Court itself is against the respondent/accused whose case has been dealt with under the criminal proceedings and this Court has earlier quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 on 11.02.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the documents/lease deeds, dated 01.08.2005, based on which the parties have entered into an agreement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Criminal Court and the District Munsif Court is one and the same and it is District Munsif Court as well as Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur. The original documents were filed in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2008 before the said Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of T.Jayaraman Vs. The Executive Engineer, in W.P.No.7616 of 2004, dated 21.08.2017, wherein this Court dealt with Section 340 Cr.P.C. 20. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 21. This Court has perused the original papers from the records of the Court below and found that there was Court seal dated 11.01.2008 on the disputed documents. Even though xerox copy of the document dated 01.08.2005 which is a lease deed entered into between the Companies of the petitioner and the respondent herein, did not bear the seal of the Court, it cannot be construed that the document produced by the accused is a genuine one. Though it has been contended that the document in question was purchased in September 2005 and that the agreement took effect from August 2005, even going by the document produced by the accused, dated 01.09.2005, would make it clear that the document could have been signed only on 01.09.2005 and the document produced by the accused was purchased on 09.09.2005 in No.6185 and the serial number of the document is completely different from the other Serial Numbers of the documents, namely in Sl.Nos.7826 to 7829. In the rejoinder, it has been admitted by the accused that there were two copies of the same document. In the rejoinder, it has been admitted by the accused that there were two copies of the same document. In the reply filed by the respondent before this Court, the respondent has accepted that the petitioner has signed the lease deed bearing Stamp Paper Nos.7826 to 7829, and when the respondent is able to produce the xerox copies of the documents bearing Sl.Nos.6185 dated (purchased on) 09.09.2005 and 7829 dated (purchased on) 06.01.2004 for Rs.10/-, nothing prevented the respondent herein/accused from producing the originals before the Court. A comparison of the documents, namely Document Nos.7826, 7827, 6185 and 7829 along with the connected files, would make it clear that there appears to be a forgery and that the words "without prior consent from lessor and shall be responsible to pay the rent to the less or" is missing in Document No.7829, purchased on 06.01.2004. 22. If all the above facts have been brought to the attention of this Court, this Court would have taken a different view in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010. Now that the order of this Court, dated 11.02.2016 passed in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 had been confirmed by the Apex Court, as discussed supra, and whether revision is maintainable or not, was not the issue/prayer in this Crl.M.P. The petitioner has not sought for any review. This Court cannot review the said order dated 11.02.2016, more particularly, Section 362 Cr.P.C. is bar for the same. In this case, the petitioner is not seeking for review of the said order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 and the prayer in this Crl.M.P. is for registering a criminal case for forgery said to have been committed by the accused. The petitioner has filed the original lease deed before the Criminal Court. Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 has been filed before this Court on 19.02.2010. When the petitioner wants to get the relief, there is no need for him to produce any forged document before the Criminal Court. It is the accused who wants to wriggle out of the situation, has manipulated the records and produced the document before this Court. The fact that there is no seal in the Court document, may be a ground to blame the Court staff in not affixing the seal. Since the document being xerox copies, the Court would have taken note of the cognizance of the document, after considering the pleadings. The fact that there is no seal in the Court document, may be a ground to blame the Court staff in not affixing the seal. Since the document being xerox copies, the Court would have taken note of the cognizance of the document, after considering the pleadings. The Court would have called for the original documents to be marked as exhibits before the Court, if the trial had taken place. In this case, the question of criminal trial does not arise, as this Court has already quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2008, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP as discussed supra. The documents produced in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2008 bear the seal of the Court, which is an ample proof that those documents are the original documents and the copy of the same containing Sl.No.7828 and 7829 have not been correctly produced before this Court by the accused. 23. Since this Court is of the view that a fraud has been committed with regard to the documents in question, I find much force in the arguments of the petitioner that a complaint should be directed to be registered. 24. The contention of the respondent/accused that the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.3356 of 2016, by order dated 02.05.2016, has confirmed the order of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, dated 11.02.2016 and that this Court's order has got merged with the order of the Supreme Court, and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Crl.M.P., cannot be accepted, as the issue in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010 is with regard to the quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2008 and the suppression of facts/introduction of forged documents was not questioned and hence, this Court is empowered to render a finding in this Crl.M.P. filed before this Court. Therefore, the question of Doctrine of Merger will not be applicable to the facts of this case, as at he prayer is not for review of the order. If any petition for review is filed, the same will be considered and the plea of Doctrine of Merger will be considered and a decision will be rendered. 25. In this petition, this Court is not recalling the order of this Court dated 11.02.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, and ask the trial Court to go on with the Calendar Case. If any petition for review is filed, the same will be considered and the plea of Doctrine of Merger will be considered and a decision will be rendered. 25. In this petition, this Court is not recalling the order of this Court dated 11.02.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.5078 of 2010, and ask the trial Court to go on with the Calendar Case. In this context, it is useful to refer a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SC 2291 (Kushalbha Ratanbhai Rohit and others Vs. State of Gujarat), wherein it has been held that once the order is signed, it attains finality and Section 362 Cr.P.C. is a bar and the Court cannot recall the order, but however, if it is not signed, the Court is empowered to recall the order. 26. It is true that no innocent should be punished, even though the criminals may get acquittal from charges before the Criminal Court. Taking note of the fact that the criminals are increasing, the accused cannot be let out on technical grounds, when there is ample evidence, more particularly like the present case on hand where the documents had been forged. The Court should be an example to inform the litigants that if anyone comes to the Court with unclean hands, they will be taken to task and will not be allowed to go scot-free on technical or mercy grounds. The litigants must approach the Court with clean hands, as held by this Court in the decision reported in 1993 (1) MLJ 26 = 1992 Writ L.R. 716 (Madras High Court) (V.Tamil Selvan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu) and the Apex Court in the decisions reported in 1983 (3) SCC 333 = AIR 1983 SC 622 = MANU/SC/0054/1983 (Dr.Vijay Kumar Kathuria and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) and in 1994 (1) LW 21 (SC) = 1994 (1) SCC 1 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath). 27. Committing forgery is a most serious offence. Certainly, the forgery in this case has got to be treated as more serious crime, more particularly, when fraud is played on the Court. 28. State of Haryana and others) and in 1994 (1) LW 21 (SC) = 1994 (1) SCC 1 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath). 27. Committing forgery is a most serious offence. Certainly, the forgery in this case has got to be treated as more serious crime, more particularly, when fraud is played on the Court. 28. The decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused in 1974 L.W. (Crl) 190 (cited supra) relates to a Police investigation wherein the documents have been given by the Police and as and when the documents are received, the Court has passed an order stating that it has got to be endorsed to avoid fabrication of documents. In the case on hand, the documents have been filed by the petitioner as a private complaint. Naturally, the xerox copies of the documents will be filed. There is no hard and fast rule to be applied with regard to the production of documents. At the time of evidence, the Court will have to verify the genuineness of the documents by scrutinising the originals. In the present case, if the original documents are filed, there is possibility of misplacing the same or it can be tampered with by anyone or even with the help of Court staff. In the case on hand, the petitioner has filed the xerox copies of the documents in question. Apart from that, the original documents have been filed before the same Court in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2008, wherein the seal of the Court has been affixed on the back of each page dating the seal as 11.01.2008. The petitioner has applied for return of the original documents and the same had also been returned by the Court. 29. It is not the case of the accused that the Stamp Paper No.7826, purchased on 06.01.2004, in which the lease agreement originally dated as 1st day of September 2005, has been corrected by striking the month as August and one of the parties had signed near the corrected month stated above. Even assuming that the document is dated subsequently and that the agreement has been entered into mentioning the previous date. As per the document produced by the accused, the agreement was signed on 01.09.2005, and the agreement should have been entered either on that date or prior to that date. Even assuming that the document is dated subsequently and that the agreement has been entered into mentioning the previous date. As per the document produced by the accused, the agreement was signed on 01.09.2005, and the agreement should have been entered either on that date or prior to that date. The name of the month "September" has been struck down and initialled by one party, which would make it clear that the document No.7826 could have been signed on 01.09.2005 itself, but it is dated as 01.08.2005, as could be seen from the correction made in the said document. This will not make anyone to come to a conclusion that the document No.7826, bearing date 01.08.2005 was a genuine one, which was prepared only by the petitioner and not fabricated by the accused. There is no reason as to why the Stamp Paper should be purchased from a different person, namely in Document No.6185, dated 09.09.2005, i.e. purchased from S.Suresh Kumar and the other documents in Document Nos.7826, dated 06.01.2004, 7827, dated 06.01.2004 and 7829, dated 06.01.2004 were purchased from one K.R.V.Rajesh Kumar. When the parties are going to sign the agreement on two sets, one for the petitioner's Company and the other for the Company of the accused, it is not known as to why the first page of the document in No.6185, dated 09.09.2005, copy of which has been produced before this Court, appears to have been created. Moreover, the accused has not produced the original copy of the second set of documents before this Court. 30. As per the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, in 1974 L.W. (Crl) 190 (cited supra) and 1976 L.W. (Crl) 82 (cited supra), the document has to be initialled by the Magistrate with date and time at which the document is produced before him. 31. 30. As per the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, in 1974 L.W. (Crl) 190 (cited supra) and 1976 L.W. (Crl) 82 (cited supra), the document has to be initialled by the Magistrate with date and time at which the document is produced before him. 31. In the decision reported in 2005 (4) SCC 370 (cited supra), as relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, the Supreme Court dealt with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and held that the principal controversy revolves around the interpretation of the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court" occurring in clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in that decision also dealt with the scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. In that decision, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision reported in Surjit Singh Vs. Balbir Singh ( 1996 (3) SCC 533 = 1996 SCC (Cri) 521, in which, it was held that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation for forgery, if produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. gets attracted and the Criminal Court is prohibited from taking cognizance of the offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedures prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by or on behalf of the Court. In the case on hand, the document has been produced before Court and when the document is compared, it appears that there is discrepancy in the document and that the accused, in order to wriggle out of the situation, committed forgery and produced the document before the Court. In terms of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., if an offence had been committed with respect to a document, it has to be given in evidence in a proceedings before any Court. In this case, the petitioner has produced the document for the purpose of getting quashment of the criminal proceedings and this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings being civil in nature and thereafter, it had come to light that the document is forged and the forged document has not been brought to the attention of the Court by the petitioner when the quash petition was heard by this Court. 32. 32. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2017 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4073 of 2017, dated 03.11.2017 (Senior Manager (P&D), RIICO Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan), which is not applicable to the facts of the present case, and it is distinguishable on facts, as in that case, after investigation, final report has been filed and challenging the order of the lower Court, the matter has gone up to the High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court. In this case, admittedly, a glance of the documents produced by the parties show that there is discrepancy in the same. 33. The decisions relied on by both parties are distinguishable on facts and cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533 (Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of T.N.), wherein, it has been held as follows: "9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington Vs. British Railways Board ( 1972 (2) WLR 537 = 1972 AC 877 (HL) ). Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases." 34. For all the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to make a complaint before the competent Court for the offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 463, 464, 465, 469, 470 and 471 IPC, as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C.