O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the defato complainant being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

2. The short point involved in this matter is that, the defacto complainant, who has lodged the complaint against the respondents 1 and 2 for conspiracy, cheating and forgery etc., had an impression that the prosecution is not proceeding with the trial fairly. By invoking Section 302 Cr.P.C., sought the permission of the Court to assist the prosecution, but that was denied by the trial Court, later on, order of the trial Court was set aside by the High Court, to replace the prosecution which was declined. On appeal, the High Court interfered and permitted the defacto complainant to appoint a private counsel to assist the prosecution. In such circumstances, the petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C., was filed to summon the disputed document and the opinion given by the expert which are the documents marked in the Suit initiated by the accused persons.

3. The said Suit was decreed ex-parte. Challenging that, the defacto complainant has filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree with condonation petition. His attempt was unsuccessful, hence it is reported that CMA is pending against the order dismissing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC., decline to entertain the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., is impugned in this petition.

4. The grievance of the petitioner now is that his 91 Cr.P.C., petition to summon the original of the disputed document and the opinion given by the expert was not allowed by the trial Court and the reasoning of the trial Court decline to entertain the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., is impugned in this petition.

5. It is pertinent to note that this matter was listed for the past three days. The learned counsel for the petitioner, yesterday and day before yesterday appeared through video conference, but his system was not working properly and his voice was not audible. Therefore, this Court was not able to pass any order on those two days. Today it is listed and the learned counsel was present. After hearing the counsel at length and when the Court was about to dictate the judgment, the petitioner repeatedly disturbing the pronouncement of judgment and not allow this Court to complete the pronouncement of order. Despite that, this Court after a brief interference by the petitioner counsel, continue the order as below:

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the proceedings of criminal Court will prevail over the civil proceedings, the documents which is subject matter of alleged forgery has to be independently tested in a criminal proceedings and therefore, dehors of the opinion of the handwriting expert in the civil proceedings in respect of the disputed documents and the same has to be summoned and subjected to test.

7. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had repeatedly held that the documents which is essential to prove guilt of a person or otherwise has to be properly tested and the procedural mechanism to arrive at just decision must be encouraged.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the examination of the witnesses including Investigating Officer almost completed but the defacto complainant had filed application for recall of witnesses. The counsel for the petitioner responded stating that the defacto complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court for alter or include certain charges and same has been allowed and the matter stands at that stage.

9. Be that as it may. As far as the issue now involved is regarding whether the disputed documents which is a subject matter in a civil Suit have validity in a criminal proceedings or to be once again put to test for an expert opinion and for that purpose the original document should be marked and part of the Court record in a civil proceedings is t