( 1 ) THESE two petitions raise an important question of law as to the scope and applicability of S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts in Criminal Petition No. 2888 of 1999 are mentioned as the issue involved in both the matters is one and the same.

( 3 ) THE first petitioner in the Criminal Petition No. 2888 of 1999 filed a suit O. S. No. 85 of 1990 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda against the third respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs. 53,527. 00. The said claim was made on the basis of a receipt-dated 14-1-1988 said to have been issued by the third respondent herein. The second petitioner is said to be the scribe of the receipt. Petitioners 3 and 4 are said to be the attestors of the said receipt.

( 4 ) DURING the course of trial of the above-mentioned suit, the third respondent herein got the above-mentioned receipt referred to handwriting expert for his opinion. According to the third respondent the signature on the said receipt was not of his and was a forged signature. The expert to whom the receipt was referred to opined that the signature was not that of the third respondent herein but was a forged signature. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge did not agree with the opinion of the expert, but came to a conclusion that the receipt was fabricated on a paper, which contained the signature of the third respondent without his consent and knowledge. The said suit was dismissed and I am informed that the matter became final.

( 5 ) ON the dismissal of the said suit the third respondent herein filed a private complaint on 9-11-1998 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda against the four petitioners herein alleging that the commission of offences under Ss. 467,468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police under S. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the police registered a case in Crime No. 248 of 1998.

( 6 ) THE present Criminal Petition No. 2888 of 1999 is filed with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime No. 248 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda.

( 7 ) COMING to the facts of Criminal Petition No. 3799 of 1999 the first petitioner executed an agreement of sale-dated 23-2-1984 in favour of the de facto complainant s sister for the sale of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0. 70 cents with an existing building. The agreement holder in turn executed a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1993 in favour of the complainant and it appears the lady died on the next day i. e. , on 16-7-1993. A private complaint is filed on 22-7-1997 against the petitioners alleging that on 4-6-1997 the petitioners and others have trespassed into the house, which was bequeathed to the complainant and took away certain valuable articles from the house. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police under S. 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31-7-1997. Subsequently the police registered a crime and it appears that they filed a final report under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the exact date of the report is not available on record. The substance of the complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner executed two agreements of sale in favour of the 4th and 2nd accused respectively on 22-2-1997, 18-4-1997 with reference to the property, which was the subject matter of the original agreement of sale between the first petitioner and the deceased lady on 23-2-1984. The complainant, therefore, alleged the commission of offences under Ss. 120-B, 454, 380, 427, 468, 471 and 506 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It is relevant to mention that the petitioners filed O. S. No. 167 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Gudivada for a permanent injunction restraining the complainant from interfering with the possession of