1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 3.4.2014 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby upon an application moved by the police seeking the original copy of agreement to sell dated 23.1.2014, the learned Judge has handed over the original copy of the said agreement to the police for sending the same to the F.S.L. for its report.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.1.2004, the petitioners and respondent-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had allegedly entered into an agreement to sell. However, as the defendant-respondents were not willing to get the sale-deed registering in favour of the petitioners, on 22.1.2007, the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance. During the course of the civil proceedings, on 9.3.2013 the defendant-respondent No.3, Neelam Kumar Saxena, lodged a FIR against the petitioners. He alleged that the agreement to sell, dated 23.1.2004, is a forged document. For, the signatures of his brother, Naveen Kumar Saxena, are not genuine but are forged. During the course of the investigation, on 11.12.2013 the Investigating Officer moved an application before the Civil Court and prayed that the original copy of the agreement be given to him so that the same could be sent to the F.S.L. for its report. By order dated 3.4.2014 the learned Judge directed that the original copy of the agreement be handed over to the Investigating Officer. It further directed the F.S.L. to submit its report within a period of two months. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the application filed by the Investigating Officer did not reveal the provision of law under which the said application was filed. The application has been filed neither under Section 91 Cr.P.C., nor under Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (the Rules' for short). Secondly, relying on the case of Mahant Deepak Swami v. The A.D.J. (FT) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur & others [2005 (2)DNJ (Raj.) 656] , the learned counsel has contended that the said application could not have been filed under Section 91 Cr.RC. For, section 91 Cr.RC. does not empower the police to summon a document from a court, but limits the power of police to summon a document only from person. Thirdly, although Rule 181 of the Rules does permit the police to seek an original document from a court, but in the present case the procedure established by Rules 181 and 182 of the Rules have not been followed by the learned Judge. Fourthly, according to Rule 181 of the Rules the learned Judge was duty bound to seek an order from the High Court before handing over the original agreement to sell to the police for further investigation. However, in the present case the learned Judge has failed to seek the order from the High Court, thus, the learned Judge has exercised a power and vested in him.

4. On the other hand Mr. Rajdeepak Rastogi, the learned counsel for respondent-defendants has relied on the case of Malaram v. State of Rajasthan & another [2013(1)WLC (Raj.)225] , in order to plead that even under Rule 181 of the Rules there is no requirement for the learned Judge to seek an order from the High Court. Secondly, in case requisition is given by a Civil Court, then a copy of the record can be given. Since in the present case the order was passed by a Civil Court, the procedure established under Rule 181 of the Rules has been followed. He has further relied on the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 538] , in order to plead that once an application has been filed under Rule 181 of the Rules, the court cannot dismiss the application. In fact, it has no other option but to handover the original copy of the document to the police for Investigation. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the Impugned order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.

5. The moot question before this Court is: