Honble KHAN, J.–Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the parties were heard. (2). The petitioner, in his capacity as a land lord, filed suit No. 70/95 Kailash vs. Dr. Niranjan for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. It appears that a rent note was filed by Dr. Niranjan Lal, defendant, in the course of the proceedings of the said suit. The said suit was still pending before the said civil court, that the present petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the court of the Magistrate and such complaint was forwarded u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Police Station concerned. F.I.R. No. 229/96 u/Ss. 120-B, 193, 209, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC was registered on the basis of the complaint, so forwarded by the Magistrate. In the course of the investigation of the said case, the Investigating Officer moved an application u/S. 91/92 Cr.P.C. before the civil court requesting it to deliver the original rent note for the purposes of comparison of signature of Smt. Prem Lata thereon in order to determine whether a forgery in respect to that document had been committed or not. The learned Magistrate declined to deliver the said docu- ment to the Investigating Officer on the ground that the civil court has yet to deter- mine as to whether the said document was a forged one or not. The learned Magistrate further directed that the copy of the order be placed on the relevant file of the civil suit. The present petitioner, who was the complainant in the said case as also the State of Raj., challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge. But the learned Sessions Judge declined to exercise his jurisdiction u/S. 397 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer on the ground that the civil Court was seized of the matter and was to determine the character of the said document as a genuine document or otherwise and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in passing his impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that the order has been passed by the civil court and that his court was not competent to revise an order passed by the civil court in exercise of jurisdiction u/S. 397(1) Cr.P.C. (3). The learned Sessions Judge further directed that the order has been passed by the civil court and that his court was not competent to revise an order passed by the civil court in exercise of jurisdiction u/S. 397(1) Cr.P.C. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Magistrate erred in law in directing that the copy of his order be placed on the file of the relevant civil suit and that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in observing that he had been called upon to revise an order, passed by the civil court. It was submitted that neither the learned Magistrate could have declined to deliver the document, asked for by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation of a criminal case, nor was the learned Addl. Sessions Judge right in law in observing that he can not revise the order, passed by the learned Magistrate. (4). The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, supported the impugned orders. The parties appear to have mis-understood the factual as well as the legal position of the present case. (5). The civil suit had admittedly been filed before a civil court and incidentally the said civil court was also the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dausa. The document in question had been filed in a civil suit when the same court exercised its jurisdiction in civil matters. The Investigating Officer filed the application u/S. 91/92 Cr.P.C. in the same court, before the same officer, who was called upon to exercise his jurisdiction in criminal matters in his capacity as a Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had jurisdiction to deal with the civil matters also, thus passed his orders on the application moved before him by the Investigating Officer, in exercise of his criminal jurisdiction. There was thus no illegality in considering and passing appropriate orders on an application moved by the Investigating Officer, investigating a cognizable offence under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (6). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had held that the document, which was alleged to be a forged one by the petitioner, had already been produced before the civil court by his adversary and that the civil court was to adjudicate upon the genuineness or otherwise of the said document. (6). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had held that the document, which was alleged to be a forged one by the petitioner, had already been produced before the civil court by his adversary and that the civil court was to adjudicate upon the genuineness or otherwise of the said document. Since the civil court was seized of the matter, no party to that litigation could have instituted a criminal complaint be- fore any other authorities in respect to the document, which was under consideration of the civil court. The civil court itself was competent and empowered to adjudicate upon the true character of that document and if in its opinion such document was a forged one, the civil court only could have proceeded against the offender in view of the provisions contained in Section 340 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter the provisions contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. would stand clearly attracted to such a case. The learned C.J.M. was, therefore, fully justified in declining the delivery of the document, which incidentally was pending before the civil court for adjudication of its character. (7). In revision the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had been called upon to re- vise an order, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who incidentally was also the civil court in the present matter. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge though dealt with the legal issue in sufficient detail in a very legal and reasoned manner yet seems to have been under some misunderstanding when he observed that the orders, passed by the Civil court, cannot be revised by him in exercise of his powers u/S. 397 Cr.P.C. The order challenged before him whether passed by a civil court or by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was passed on an application u/S. 91/92 Cr.P.C. and was, therefore, legally revisable by him in exercise of his powers u/S. 397 r.w. Sec. 399 Cr.P.C. Here it may be pointed out that the application had infact been moved u/S. 91 Cr.P.C. before a court. Since such court happened to be the civil court also before which the required document was pending consideration and decision, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who occupied a dual capacity could have passed the order on such application in his capacity as a civil court u/S. 91 Cr.P.C. and in his capacity as a Magistrate u/S. 92 Cr.P.C. However, since the very officer occupied the dual position in the present case, there was no illegality on his part in passing the impugned order. The learned Magistrate, who had passed the orders in his capacity as C.J.M., could have very well directed that the copy of his order be placed on the record of the civil suit. (8). The facts of the present case disclose that the petitioner had intentionally tried to interfere with the course of administration of justice in respect of a document, whose genuineness was yet to be investigated and enquired into by a civil court. The complaint had been forwarded u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. which postulates that the said complaint had been forwarded by the learned Magistrate without application of mind. Under such circumstances it was expected of the Investigating Officer to have invited the attention of the learned Magistrate to the fact that the document in respect of which he had been asked to investigate a cognizable offence, was pending decision of the civil court. Had the Investigating Officer done like that, the necessity of carrying on investigation into such a case could have been avoided. It is expected that the Investigating Officers, carrying on investigation into such offences in respect of the documents already filed before some courts and which courts are yet to determine their characters as genuine documents or otherwise, should bring such facts to the courts of the Magistrate, under whose orders, u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. they might be investigating a cognizable offence attracting the provisions of Secs. 195, 340 Cr.P.C. (9). In view of the above, there is absolutely no merits in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (10). A copy of this order shall be sent to the Director General of Police for his consideration for issuing necessary instructions/directions to the Investigating Officers, investigating offences falling within the purview of Sec. 195 r.w. Section 340 Cr.P.C., so that unnecessary further investigations into such offences may be avoided. (10). (10). A copy of this order shall be sent to the Director General of Police for his consideration for issuing necessary instructions/directions to the Investigating Officers, investigating offences falling within the purview of Sec. 195 r.w. Section 340 Cr.P.C., so that unnecessary further investigations into such offences may be avoided. (10). A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Registry to all the Magistrates, exercising powers u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C., emphasising upon them not to register complaints or forward for investigation u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. Such complaints as com- plained of the commission of the offences, attracting the provisions of Sec. 195 r.w. Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. so that institution of such unnecessary and meaningless cases in courts and/or at police stations may be avoided.