ORDER : 1. Leave granted in both the petitions. 2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we have not an iota of doubt that, viewed from any angle and perspective, whether that of the accused or of the complainant (appellants in the respective appeals before us), the impugned order dated 16.5.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 614 of 2019 cannot be sustained. The appropriate course in this matter is to set aside the order impugned and to restore the criminal revision petition for reconsideration by the High Court in accordance with law. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows : The accused and father of the complainant were brothers. The grievance of the complainant had been that his father owned a medical store in the name of M/s Chhatarpur Medical Store and drug license existed in his name but, after demise of his father on 10.6.1981, the accused, on the basis of false statement and with connivance of the Drug Licensing Authority, got the drug license transferred and renewed in his name, while projecting that the medical store was the business of a partnership firm comprising of the accused and the deceased father of the complainant. 4. After investigation on the FIR lodged in the matter, and on the prima facie conclusions that the accused was running the medical store on the basis of license which was renewed in his name on the basis of false information, the charge-sheet was filed for offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on which, ultimately the charges were framed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur on 5.1.2019. 5. In challenge to the said order dated 5.1.2019 by the accused, the High Court referred to the background facts and the definitions of “forgery” and “making a false document”, as occurring in sections 463 and 464 IPC. The High Court observed that the applicant i.e., the accused, had not made any entry in the register, and there was no material to show that he had adopted any deceptive practice and hence, he could not be made responsible for making any false document in connection with the entry in the license register with regard to the renewal of license. 6. 6. The High Court, however, did not stop at the aforesaid finding occurring in paragraph 7 of the order impugned. The High Court, instead, took up sections 192, 193 and 196 IPC and observed that the material in the charge-sheet was prima facie sufficient to establish that the accused had deliberately submitted false statements or information before a public servant for getting the license renewed in his name by stating that he was the sole surviving partner of the medical store. The High Court, therefore, directed framing of charges under sections 192, 193 and 196 IPC while setting aside the impugned order and thereby, annulling the other charges. 7. Though varying submissions are sought to be made on behalf of the parties but, looking to the accusations, it appears prima facie doubtful as to why, on the allegations as made and the material as produced, the accused-appellant would not be charged of offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC? It remains equally questionable as to whether, on the allegations as made, charges under sections 192, 193 and 196 IPC could be framed in this case? Moreover, if there be any occasion to frame charges under sections 192, 193 and 196 IPC at all, the trial Court has ample powers to do so at the relevant stage. 8. Viewed from any angle, we find it difficult to endorse the approach of the High Court in setting aside the order impugned and then carving out a different case against the accused. The case having been approached from an altogether wrong angle by the High Court, we find it expedient that the order impugned be set aside, and the said revision petition be restored for consideration afresh. 9. Hence, these appeals are allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above; the impugned order dated 16.5.2019 as passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 614 of 2019 is set aside; and the revision petition is restored for reconsideration of the High Court. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the High Court on 26.4.2022. 10. It goes without saying that we have not made comments on merits of the case either way and all the relevant aspects remain open for consideration of the High Court in the restored revision petition. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.