1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1329/2009 (Sugan Singh Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 5th April, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Mahesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Saxena, counsel for the respondents Mr. Amit Punia PP for the State BY THE COURT: By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has prayed to set-aside the order dated 8th July, 2009 rendered by Civil Judge (Junior Division)–cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar in Civil Suit No. 26/2005. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. Having gone through the impugned order dated 8th July, 2009, it is found that one complaint was filed by Smt. Munni Devi in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, which was sent for 2 investigation under Section 156 (3) of CrPC to police. During the investigation of this case, the investigating officer filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC to obtain a document, which was a part of civil suit no. 26/2005 pending before the court of Civil Judge, Neem-Ka- Thana. The learned Civil Judge ordered the document to be given to the investigating officer for the purpose investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that this document could not have been handed over by the court concerned for the purpose of investigation without the permission of the Hon'ble High Court as it is envisaged under Rule 181 of General Rule (Civil) that any document lying in a civil suit in the Court, if required at police station, could be ordered to be handed over by the High Court and not by any other subordinate court. Hence, the learned Civil Judge committed illegality in handing over the said document. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel also canvassed 3 that since this order was passed under Section 91 of CrPC by the Civil Judge, only a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of CrPC could be filed as Criminal Revision was not maintainable against that order. This argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be totally devoid of any force and substance. This argument does not contain any legal force also. No order under Section 91 of CrPC is required to be passed by a Civil Court in a civil suit. The impugned order is also not found to have been passed by the Court under Section 91 of CrPC. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect appears to be ridiculous. It is not a case of issuing a summon by any court for the purpose of procuring evidence from the possession of any person, but it is a case of handing over a document which was already lying in civil suit pending in the court, so the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be an order having been 4 passed under Section 91 of CrPC. Since the order of handing over the document to the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation has attained finality, the petitioner must have filed a criminal revision against the same. Petitioner cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC. The petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, being totally devoid of any substance or merits, deserves to be dismissed at the thresh-hold, which stands dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is directed to file a criminal revision petition, if he feels to do so, before the revisional court. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-