B. P. SINGH, J. All these four petitions relate to Criminal Case No. 292 of 1989 State v. Nripendra Singh & Ors. , under Sections 406/420/477/120-B, I. P. C. , P. S. Jariya, district Hamirpur and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Late Maharaja Mahipal Singh Judev was the owner of Sarila Estate in district Hamirpur. Late Maharaja had five sons i. e. Sri Devendra Singh, Sri Jayendra Singh, Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Narendra Singh and Sri Nripendra Singh. 3. Smt. Kumud Rani is the wife of Sri Nripendra Singh. Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani are the applicants in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1166 of 1992 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and Criminal Misc. Transfer Appli cation No. 622-B of 1992. Nripendra Singh is the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 1434 of 1991 and Criminal Revision No. 45 of 1992. 4. An FIR was lodged by Raja Narendra Singh who is the eldest son of Maharaja Mahipal Singh Judev on 29-12-1988 against Nripendra Singh and his wife Smt. Kumud Rani. It was alleged by Raja Narendra singh that his father Mahipal Singh died on 13-1-1983 and in August 1984 a family settlement had taken place between him and his brothers Nripendra Singh and Devendra Singh and Rani Veena Kumari the widow of his brother Virendra Singh. The daughters of Maharaja Mahipal Singh, Rani Sushil Kumari, Sarain Kumari and Kunwar Rani Rajendra Kumari were also parties to the said settlement. The above settlement was reduced to writing and in the document the execu tants had agreed about their respective shares in the property of late Maharaja Mahipal Singh. The written settlement in question was a value security because the executants had acknowledged each others separate shares in the same. The document in question was signed by all the executants. After the execution of the above deed of family settlement, affidavits were exchanged between the executants. 5. The deed of the family settlement was left with Raja Narendra Singh as he was the eldest and senior most member of the family. It was also agreed that the deed in question could be availed of by any one of the execu tants for showing the same to the officers or courts if and when required in any proceedings. The deed of the family settlement was left with Raja Narendra Singh as he was the eldest and senior most member of the family. It was also agreed that the deed in question could be availed of by any one of the execu tants for showing the same to the officers or courts if and when required in any proceedings. Smt. Kumud Rani took the deed of settlement from Raja Narendra Singh upon the plea that she was to show the same to the officers where mutation proceedings were pending relating to the share which fell to the lot of Raja Nripendra Singh. These proceedings were completing in March 1988 in the court of Naib-Tahsildar Jalalpur Bathi. Thereafter on 18th April, 1988 Smt. Kumud Rani received back the deed of settlement from the Naib-Tansildar, Jampur-Bathi and has kept the same with her since then. When Raja Narendra Singh applied for the mutation of the property in his name, objection was filed by Raja Nripendra Singh. The deed of family settlement was also not produced by Smt. Kumud Rani. She also refused to hand over the deed of settlement to Raja Narendra Singh who, under the terms of the agreement between the executants, was entitled to keep the same. 6. It was also alleged that Raja Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani were guilty of offences under Sections 406, 416, 420, 477 and 120-B, I. P. C. On the basis of this F. I. R. dated 29-12-1988, the investigation started. Apprehending their arrest by the police during the course of investigation, Nripendra Singh and Snit. Kumud Rani filed a Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 13681 of 1989 in this Court against Station Officer, F. S. Jariya, State of U. P. and the first informant Narendra Singh. The prayer in this writ petition was for quashing the investigation against the petitioners and to stay their arrest. This writ petition was dismissed on 16-12-1989 because in the meantime the police had submitted a charge-sheet against Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani on 3- 8-1989 and the accused were ordered to be summoned. On the same day Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482, Cr. This writ petition was dismissed on 16-12-1989 because in the meantime the police had submitted a charge-sheet against Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani on 3- 8-1989 and the accused were ordered to be summoned. On the same day Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. (No. 10789 of 1989) was filed by Smt. Kumud Rani and Nripendra Singh praying for the quashing of the criminal pro ceedings against the petitioners as well as quashing the order summoning them on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police. After hearing both the parties Criminal Misc. Application No. 10789 of 1989 was dismissed by this Court on 11-5-1990. 7. While putting in appearance before the trial court, an application for discharging them was moved by Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani. This application was rejected by learned C. J. M. , Hamirpur on 13-8-1991. Raja Nripendra Singh filed an application for revision Criminal Revision No. 1434 of 1991-against this order dated 13-8-1991. As Criminal Revision No. 1434 of 1991 was pending for admission, C. J. M. , Harnirpur was requested to grant time for bringing interim stay order from this Court. The prayer for time was not accepted by the C. J. M. and application of the accused was rejected on 6-12-1991. Consequently, Nripendra Singh filed another Criminal Revision No. 45 of 1992 against the order dated 6- 12-1991 passed by C. J. M. Harnirpur. In Criminal Revision No. 45 of 1992 this Court was pleased to order that the applicant shall not be arrested in pursuance of the warrant of arrest dated 6-12-1991 issued in Crimianl Case No. 291, dated 1989 by C. J. M, Harnirpur. Thereafter an application for transfer of the Criminal Case No. 291 of 1989 from the court of C. J. M. , Hamirpur to any other court of competent jurisdiction was moved before the Sessions Judge, Hamir pur. The said application for transfer was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 3-1-1992 and thereafter the applicants moved an application for transfer, Transfer Application No. 622-B of 1992 in this court on 13-1-1992 praying for the transfer of the case out of the district Hamirpur. 8. Thereafter an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Criminal Misc. The said application for transfer was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 3-1-1992 and thereafter the applicants moved an application for transfer, Transfer Application No. 622-B of 1992 in this court on 13-1-1992 praying for the transfer of the case out of the district Hamirpur. 8. Thereafter an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1166 of 1992 was filed by Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani on 23-1-1992 in this Court praying to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 291 of 1989 pending in the court of C. J. M. , Hamirpur on the basis of F. I. R. dated 29-12-1988. Prayer for quashing the order dated 19-8-1991 was also made. 9. In all these cases affidavits have been exchanged and parties counsel have been heard at length. 10. The main ground for quashing the proceedings in the trial court are that no offence is made out against the accused persons and that the pro secution of the accused persons is barred under Section 195, Cr. P. C. on the other hand the contentions of the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the first informant are that the F. I. R. and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation to make out a case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406/416/420/477. I. P. C. and that provisions of Section 195, Cr. P. C. are not attracted to the facts of the present case. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the first in formant that all the pleas and grounds raised by the petitioners were available to them and some of the pleas were in fact raised when the earlier petition No. 10789 of 1989 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was moved by them. These pleas did not find favour with the court and the petition was dismissed and for this reason it would not be proper now to review the same in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. 11. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the first in formant has force. In their petition No. 10789 of 1989 the following aver ments were made by the petitioners in paras 27 to 29: "para 27. 11. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the first in formant has force. In their petition No. 10789 of 1989 the following aver ments were made by the petitioners in paras 27 to 29: "para 27. That the petitioners have demonstrated that dispute involv ed in the present proceedings is of civil Mature and the same cannot be adjudicated by the Munsif Magistrate, Hamirpur, Criminal proceedings in pursuance of F. I. R. , dated 29-12-1988 and charge sheet dated 3-8-1989. Para 28. That no offence has been made out against the petitioners under Sections 406, 416, 420, 477 and 120-B of I. P. C. Para 29. That the Munsif Magistrate, Hamirpur acted illegally in taking cognizance of the case without investigation under Sections 406, 416, 420, 477 and 120-B of I. P. C. " Annexure-1 to the Counter Affidavit it is the copy of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 10789 of 1989. The relevant portion of the order runs as follows: "i have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length as well as the learned counsel for the complainant opposite parties and the learned A. G. A. After perusal of the documents on record, it is clear that there has not been any abuse to the process of the Court in case by the court below and, therefore, any interference by this court in exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. does not arise. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. " 12. Thus the question whether no offence under Sections 406, 416, 420, 477 and 120-B, I. P. C. was made out, was considered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10789 of 1989 and the plea of the petitioners did not find favour with the Court. No doubt the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. are wider, but now it will not be proper to review the order passed on a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. simply because the petitioners thought it fit now to come to the Court to invoke another jurisdiction of the Court. As regards the question if the prosecution is barred under Section 195, Cr. P. C. I may point out that the above contention is not well founded. Section 195, Cr. P. C. simply because the petitioners thought it fit now to come to the Court to invoke another jurisdiction of the Court. As regards the question if the prosecution is barred under Section 195, Cr. P. C. I may point out that the above contention is not well founded. Section 195, Cr. P. C. deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. In the present case the deed in question was not on the file of any case as a piece of evidence when the F. I. R. was lodged. The case of the first informant is that the deed of settlement is a valuable security and has been secreted by both the accused persons who are acting in collusion with each other. Thus the assertions can be scrutinised only after the evidence in the case has been led. When the earlier petition No. 10789 of 1989 was dismissed the charge sheet had been submitted. Thereafter nothing has changed except that the statement of the accused persons have been recorded. It is obvious that the accused persons have denied to have committed any offence and now the only way open to the trial court is to proceed with the case in order to decide the question whether the prosecu tion succeeds in proving its case on the strength of the evidence which is to be produced in the Court. 13. The question whether no offence is made out is again a question which is to be determined only after the evidence of the prosecution has been adduced and the defence has its chance to cross- examine the witnesses and has had the opportunity also to lead the evidence in defence, if any. 14. Coming to the question of the transfer of case from district Hamirpur, I may point out that the only allegations are that the accused persons have no faith in the C. J. M. and the Sessions Judge who are siding with the first informant. Learned counsel for the first informant made statement at the Bar that the Sessions Judge has been transferred from the district and he would have no objection if the case is transferred from the Court of C. J. M. , Hamirpur to some other court having competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the first informant made statement at the Bar that the Sessions Judge has been transferred from the district and he would have no objection if the case is transferred from the Court of C. J. M. , Hamirpur to some other court having competent jurisdiction. He also made statement at the Bar that he has no objection if the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners is quashed provided the petitioners appear in the trial court on any date which is fixed for their appearance. 15. In view of the above discussion Criminal Revision No. 1434 of 1991 and Criminal Revision No. 45 of 1992, Transfer Application No. 622-B of 1992 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1166 of 1992 are finally disposed of with the directions that the petitioners shall appear in the court of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 7 July, 1992 and Criminal Case No. 291 of 1989 (State v. Nripendra Singh and others is transferred to the court of 1st A. C. J. M. , Hamirpur. The warrant of arrest issued against the peti tioners is quashed. Learned 1st A. C. J. M. shall proceed to decide the case in accordance with law. Appeal disposed of. .