1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2009 Ketan Surendra Shah and another Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent M.K.Thakar i/by Prakash Naik for the applicants. V.S.Gokhale for respondent no.2. H.T.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The challenge in this application is to an order dated 5th July 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code" for short). The second respondent filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 403, 419 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the complaint is that the documents which are referred to in paragraph 8 thereof have been forged and fabricated. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the alleged documents are on the record of the Civil Court and as the Police are not in possession of the said documents, no investigation can be carried out as 2 regards the said documents. He submitted that the investigation cannot proceed as the alleged forged and fabricated documents are not in the custody of Police. He placed reliance on the orders passed in Criminal Application No.742 of 2007 by this Court. 2. I have considered the submissions. In view of the order passed under section 156(3) the Police will have to investigate. The Police can always apply to the concerned Civil Court for the custody of the documents for the purposes of investigation. Merely because the documents in respect of which forgery is alleged are filed on record of the Civil Court, it cannot be said that the investigation cannot proceed. The learned counsel for the second respondent disputes the correctness of the statement that the original documents are in the custody of the Court. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect. Suffice it to say that on the ground which is urged in this application, the investigation cannot be prevented. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that there is likelihood of arrest and therefore, the applicants may be protected. It is not in dispute that an application for anticipatory bail made by the applicants is still pending in this Court. Hence, this request cannot be acceded to. 4. There is no merit in the application and the application is accordingly rejected. The learned counsel for the applicants at this stage that this order should not come in way of the applicants while deciding the 3 application for anticipatory bail. This Court has not dealt with the prayer made on this aspect on merits as an application for anticipatory bail is pending in this Court. (A.S.OKA, J.)