The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the legal principles regarding the production of documents for investigation.

B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal is filed in a matter of a dispute which relates to the management of a temple known as "Sitaramji Temple" It is said that two Mahants namely Mahant Gobind Das and Mahant Mohan Das were running the affairs of the temple and its management. They were doing sewa puja alternatively for years.

2. A notice under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) was issued requiring the temple to be registered as Public Trust. The erstwhile rulers of Jaipur State considering the dispute directed the two Mahants to share half of the income of each year vide order dated 29.07.1942. Somewhere in 1943, the management of the temple was taken over by the Court of wards. Subsequently, when the State of Rajasthan came into being, the administration of the temple was taken over by Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan. Two lines of Mahants arrived at a compromise in 1950. Some orders were passed by the Revenue department also. In between, a draft deed was drawn up and an application for registration of the temple as public trust came to be filed under Section 17 of the Act of 1959. It is alleged Mahant Mohan Das died on 310.1996 and no notice of proceedings was issued to his legal representatives.

3. In the year 1999, a civil suit came to be filed by the appellant in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City. In that civil suit, an application was filed for production/filing of the original will claimed by the defendants. It is claimed by the appellant that the will which ultimately came to be filed on the record of the civil suit is a forged one and, therefore, the producer of the will should be prosecuted for relying on a forged document.

4. The appellant plaintiff not getting the desired relief filed a criminal complaint. The same was forwarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, to the Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur. The investigating officer asked the defendants to produce the Will which was not done by the defendants. Consequently, an application of police came before the Court trying the suit for handing over the documents to the investigating agency. Learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that it was not possible to hand over the documents unless there is a compliance of Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil ) 1986.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing as follows:-

"The uncle of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 treating the provision of Section 195, CrPC, applicable in the instant case filed an application before Assistant Devasthan Commissioner for making a complaint against the respondents and others with regard to the same subject matter. This application was rejected by the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner on 12.09.2001 against which the respondent No. 6 has submitted a criminal revision petition No. 57/2004 which is pending before the ADJ No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur. Irrespective of pendency of this revision petition and knowing fully well that in view of bar under Section 195, CrPC, the petitioner got this FIR registered concealing these material facts. Not only this the petitioner himself has submitted an application under Section 340, CrPC, before the ADJ No. 3 Jaipur City, Jaipur on the same subject matter which is also pending for decision. Thus, it is wrong to suggest that there is no alternative remedy rather the registration of FIR itself is not an appropriate and legal remedy. It is also submitted that so far examination of the documents is concerned, the trial Court is competent to get these documents examined by the FSL if the petitioner is able to satisfy it about the necessity of such examination during trial of the civil suit. It is at all n