ORDER :

1. Captioned Criminal O.P. No. 3594 of 2021, which has been filed with a prayer to direct a preliminary enquiry under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity] for proceeding against aforementioned two respondents for a purported offence under section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. has been listed before this Court under the cause list caption FOR MAINTAINABILITY.

2. Short facts sans unnecessary particulars and details, i.e. essential facts imperative for appreciating this order are as follows:

(a) Respondents 1 and 2 in captioned Criminal Original Petition [hereinafter Crl. O.P. for the sake of brevity] arraying themselves as petitioners 1 and 2 respectively filed a Original Petition (O.P. for the sake of brevity) in O.P. No. 79 of 2020 on the file of this court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996), which shall hereinafter be referred to as “A” and “C” Act for the sake of brevity with a prayer to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes that had arisen between them and other contracting parties in relation to a partnership deed dated 16.07.2019 (hereinafter “said partnership deed” for the sake of brevity).

(b) In the aforementioned O.P. under section 11 of “A” and “C” Act, sole petitioner in the captioned Crl. O.P. was arrayed as second respondent. Aforementioned OP under section 11 of “A” and “C” Act was pivoted on a covenant/clause captioned Dispute Resolution in the said partnership deed, which provides for resolution of disputes arising out of said partnership deed by arbitration. In other words, aforementioned O.P. under section 11 of “A” and “C” Act was predicated on the plea that the dispute resolution clause in said partnership deed serves an arbitration agreement between parties within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) read with section 7 of “A” and “C” Act.

(c) The arbitration OP was resisted by respondents therein primarily on the ground that said partnership deed is a document that has been made by making use of signatures obtained from respondents therein in blank stamp papers. To be noted, signatures of second respondent (petitioner in captioned Crl. O.P.) in said partnership deed were not disputed. Transaction between parties was also not disputed, but it was only pleaded that some blank stamp papers signed at the time of a loan transaction were used for preparing said partnership deed.

(d) As the scope of a OP under section 11 of “A” and “C” Act is very narrow, this court, placing reliance on Mayavati Trading principle being law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayavati Trading Private Limited vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman, (2019) 8 SCC 714 turning on sub section (6-A) of section 11 of A and C Act disposed of the arbitration O.P. (after full contest) in and by an order dated 18.02.2020. To be noted, by this order, a retired Judge in the district judiciary in Tamil Nadu was appointed as sole arbitrator and the question regarding said partnership deed being gotten up by using stamp papers said to have been signed blank was left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, as that would inter-alia turn on arbitral tribunal ruling on its own jurisdiction.

(e) Aforementioned order made by this Court in the abovesaid arbitration O.P. was assailed (inter-alia by petitioner in captioned Crl. O.P.) by carrying the matter to Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11624 of 2020, but Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of this court. In other words, the SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.01.2021 inter-alia observing that petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the objections including validity of the agreement and deeds before the Arbitrator.

(f) This court is now informed that arbitral tribunal has commenced sittings, sittings are under way and arbitral tribunal has also made some orde