As per case facts, the 1st Respondent, an employee, purchased shares of the Appellant Company, but his attempts to register them were repeatedly rejected due to various issues like signature ... differences, insufficient stamping, and pencil entries. He filed a Petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act, which was dismissed. The Appellant Company subsequently transferred the shares to a third party despite knowing about the ongoing dispute. The 1st Respondent then filed a criminal complaint alleging multiple offenses, leading to numerous applications, rejections, and transfers between courts, as he continuously sought to quash proceedings or introduce additional evidence. The Appellant appealed against High Court orders that allowed the introduction of such evidence. The question arose whether the High Court's directions allowing additional evidence and re-opening previously dismissed issues were permissible, especially given prior rejections, the absence of revision against those rejections, and the statutory bar against reviewing final orders under the Criminal Procedure Code. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld that Section 362 Cr.P.C. barred reviewing or altering a final order. However, it set aside the High Court's directions from the 19th October, 2000 Order, which allowed additional evidence, because a similar application for this relief had already been rejected and finalized without a revision, a fact not brought to the High Court's attention. The Court also noted the 1st Respondent's vexatious litigation and rejection of fair settlement offers.