N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions judge, R. R. District refusing to summon sri M. Sreehari, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, L. B. Nagar P. S. , R. R. District, the present revision is preferred. ( 2 ) REVISION petitioner herein is the 1st respondent/insurance company in the OP. (O. P. No. 31 of 1999) filed by the respondents herein under the provisions of motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. According to the revision petitioner, after filing of the counter in the main O. P. , they came to know that the crime vehicle in question, which is insured with them, has been wrongly implicated by the respondentsclaimants even though it did not cause the alleged accident. The revision petitioner alleged that the claimants and the owner of the vehicle have colluded together. Therefore, it is averred that the investigating officer who investigated the crime in question i. e. Crime No. 6 of 1998, is an important witness as he will be in a position to speak the truth with reference to the relevant record. According to the revision petitioner the record in Crime No. 6 of 1998 is an important piece of evidence and that unless and until the investigating officer is summoned, it may not be possible to produce the said record into court. Therefore, it is necessary to summon and examine the investigating officer sri M. Sreehari, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, L. B. Nagar P. S. who is the 1st investigating officer in Cr. No. 6/1998 of the said Police Station, along with records in crime No. 6/1998. The said petition was opposed by the claimants. The court below on a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties dismissed the petition on the ground that the investigating Officer cannot go beyond the document which he has already filed. ( 3 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the investigating officer cannot go beyond the document which he has filed into court and the evidence of an investigating officer may not be of much use for the prosecution in each and every case. ( 3 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the investigating officer cannot go beyond the document which he has filed into court and the evidence of an investigating officer may not be of much use for the prosecution in each and every case. But, in a case of this nature where there is a specific allegation that the vehicle in question is not the vehicle which caused the accident and that the claimants have wrongly implicated the said vehicle, the best person to speak about the same is the investigating officer who registered the accident as a crime and conducted investigation. In such a situation, the evidence of the investigating officer on a perusal of the case diary maintained by him would be crucial and would form an important piece of evidence. Therefore, there is no harm in summoning the investigating officer along with the relevant record and examining him in court. If the investigation reveals that the vehicle in question is not the vehicle which had actually caused accident non-examination of the investigating officer in such a situation would certainly cause great prejudice to the case of the insurance company. But on the other hand, if the record does not reveal anything adverse to the case set up by the revision petitioner, then no harm would be caused to either party. Therefore, I am of the view that the court below ought to have allowed the petition. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside. The Court below is directed to summon the investigating officer along with records and examine him at an early date, which shall be fixed by it. The court below is further directed not to grant any adjournments for the purpose of taking the evidence of the investigating officer. No costs.