complainant, we are satisfied that the acquittal of the respondent is a possible conclusion, which could have been recorded by the High Court. Though, something can be said about the manner in which the findings have been recorded by the High Court, we are recording our findings after having perused the evidence of the complainant. Hence, we concur with the ultimate order of the High Court and accordingly, the special leave petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”12 ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION: 21. Having given our anxious thought to the lis, we find that the Orders impugned need interference. 22. In our view, the Single Judge had appreciated the bundle of facts in the correct perspective, that is, the respondent had, by way of the Agreement, created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. There was no redemption of this mortgage. The Division Bench fell in error in concluding that “The plaint averments are self-contradictory, vague and