Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FT) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing the application of the police for issuance of records. 2. The petitioner also prayed that the District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5 be directed to issue documents as required by the police in terms of Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (for short, Rules of 1986) for FSL verification and further direct the police to re-submit the documents to the trial Court alongwith FSL report after verification. 3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a temple of Sitaramji near Prem Prakash Cinema, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Two mahants namely; Mahant Govind Das and Mahant Mohan Das by a customary arrangement were running the temple and its management and doing Sewa Puja in alternate years. 4. The State Government issued a notice under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short, the Act of 1959) requiring the Mandir Sitaramji to be registered as a public trust. 5. A civil suit was filed against the State of Rajasthan, Devasthan Department and others by the respondent No. 2 jointly with the grand-father of the petitioner. It was stated in the suit that the temple was the private property of the mahants and liable to be handed over to the mahants in view of the compromise as to the management and the Sewa Puja in respect thereof . The said suit was partly decreed and it was directed that the plaintiffs late Govind Das and Bhagwati Prasad were jointly entitled to the annuity amount of Rs. 3,591/-. An appeal was filed by late Govind Das and Bhagwati Prasad against the decree dated 03.02.1981. During the pendency of this appeal, the Dy. Secretary, Revenue vide order dated 04.08.1990 taken over the management of the temple by the Court of wards. 6. Late Mahant Das on 29.03.1995 moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan in Case No. 26/1991. An appeal was filed by late Govind Das and Bhagwati Prasad against the decree dated 03.02.1981. During the pendency of this appeal, the Dy. Secretary, Revenue vide order dated 04.08.1990 taken over the management of the temple by the Court of wards. 6. Late Mahant Das on 29.03.1995 moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan in Case No. 26/1991. Reference was made to a trust deed, apparently dated 28.08.1991 and it was stated that at the time of registration of the temple as public trust it be ensured that the management of the trust be conducted on the basis of the consensus between Mahant Govind Das and Bhagwati Prasad as they represented the two separate branches of the mahants. 7. Mahant Govind Das died on 310.1996 and after his death no notice of the proceedings for registration of Sitaramji temple as a public trust was issued to the legal representatives of late Mahant Govind Das. 8. The Assistant Commissioner vide its order dated 012.1999 observed that late Mahant Govind Das was not the alternate mahant from a line of mahants sharing the management of Sewa Puja of the temple for the last 300 years. 9. The petitioner alongwith others filed a civil suit in the year 1999 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the respondents No. 2 to 5 for giving alternate Osra (management) of the temple and also filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 before the Commissioner, Devasthan which came to be dismissed on 25.05.2001 and this order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in the Writ Petition No. 729/2002 which is still pending. 10. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 on 16.02.2001 praying that the defendants be directed to produce the original will as well as the letters before the trial Court. In reply, defendants submits that the original will was not in the custody of defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and further that the original will had been filed in Devasthan Department in the proceedings for Registration and had been executed as Exhibit-33. On this eventuality, plaintiff moved another application under Section 151 CPC on 01.08.2001 stating that original will had not been produced before the Devasthan Department and a photocopy of the will had been produced. On this eventuality, plaintiff moved another application under Section 151 CPC on 01.08.2001 stating that original will had not been produced before the Devasthan Department and a photocopy of the will had been produced. Since, the original will was not produced the plaintiff had no other alternative except to file complaint under Section 156 (3), CrPC, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City. Consequently, an FIR No. 387/2002 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120, IPC, came to be registered on 011.2002 at PS Manak Chowk, Jaipur. 11. The police gave notice to the defendant under Section 91, CrPC, to produce the documents but the same were not produced by the defendant and instead of producing before the police, the defendant filed these documents before the trial Court. Therefore, the application was moved praying that the documents be handed over to the police so that these documents could be sent to the FSL for verification and this application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2004 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 which is reproduced as under:- 181. Prohibition against issue of records.-"Ordinarily no record shall be issued except on the requisition of a Civil, Criminal, or Revenue Court of a Tribunal of the Government, of the Board of Revenue, of Commissioner of Excise and of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and then only on the order of the Presiding Officer. In all other cases, before a record is issued the orders of the High Court shall be taken on the subject. 13 By referring Rule 181, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this rule starts with the word ordinarily and, therefore, the rule is to be taken as directory and not mandatory. 14. It is further given out that it is necessary to check the documents either these documents are forged or tempered with and this can only be verified after the FSL report is received and for that purpose these documents should be handed over to the police for FSL verification. 15. 14. It is further given out that it is necessary to check the documents either these documents are forged or tempered with and this can only be verified after the FSL report is received and for that purpose these documents should be handed over to the police for FSL verification. 15. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents categorically stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition as it clearly amounts to abuse process of the Court and unlawful intervention in regular course of administration of criminal justice. 16. The uncle of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 treating the provisions of Section 195, CrPC, applicable in the instant case filed an application before the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner for making a complaint against the respondents and others with regard to the same subject matter. This application was rejected by the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner on 12.09.2001 against which the respondent No. 6 has submitted a Criminal Revision Petition No. 57/2004 which is pending before the ADJ No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Irrespective of pendency of this revision petition and knowing fully well that in view of bar under Section 195, CrPC, the petitioner got this FIR registered concealing these material facts. Not only this the petitioner himself has submitted an application under Section 340, CrPC, before the ADJ No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur on the same subject matter which is also pending for decision. Thus it is wrong to suggest that there is no alternative remedy rather the registration of FIR itself is not an appropriate and legal remedy. 17. It is also submitted that so far examination of the documents is concerned, the trial Court is competent to get these documents examined by the FSL if the petitioner is able to satisfy it about the necessity of such examination during trial of the civil suit. It is at all not necessary to give the documents to the police to obtain FSL examination. 18. It is at all not necessary to give the documents to the police to obtain FSL examination. 18. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the order impugned and relevant provisions of law and more specifically Rule 181 of the General Rule, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as several suits and criminal cases are pending and even a writ petition is also pending with regard to the original dispute, I am fully convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the trial Court, the trial Court is quite competent to get the documents examined through FSL regarding genuineness and correctness of the documents. It is not necessary that the documents be handed over to the police for FSL verification. 19. Accordingly, I find no illegality in the order impugned by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected and as such no interference whatsoever is required in the order impugned while exercising revisionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 20. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.