Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby he has rejected an application moved under Section 91 of the CrPC (henceforth to be referred to as the Code for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had lodged an FIR at PS Harmada with regard to an alleged agreement, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 IPC. Since a civil dispute also existed between the petitioner and the accused person, in the said civil dispute the original copy of the agreement was submitted. However, in order to ascertain whether the said document was forged or not, the police required the said document. Therefore, the SHO, Police Station, Harmada submitted an application under Section 91 of the Code before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, wherein he prayed that the original copy of the agreement should be given to police so that the police can send the agreement to the FSL at Jaipur. It is pertinent to point out that even the civil suit (Civil Suit No. 41/95) was also pending before the same Court. However, vide order dated 02.08.2005 the said application was dismissed ostansibly on the ground that under Rule 181 of General Rules (Civil), 1986, the power to give a copy of the document, which is submitted in civil, criminal, revenue Court or before a Tribunal etc lies with the High Court and not with the concerned Court. Hence this petition before us. 3. Mr. Anil Upman, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in order for the prosecution to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the FSL Report with regard to the genuineness of the document is essential. Therefore, the police was justified in requesting that the original agreement be handed over to them so that the document could be sent to the FSL for their opinion. He has also relied on an order passed by this Court dated 08.08.2002 in SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 685/2002, Iqbal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby in a similar case, this Court had directed the document to be handed over to the police. 4. In all fairness Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the petition. 5. Misc. Petition No. 685/2002, Iqbal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby in a similar case, this Court had directed the document to be handed over to the police. 4. In all fairness Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the petition. 5. Considering the facts that it is alleged that the agreement is a forged one, it is imperative that a FSL report be sought about its genuineness as in the absence of the FSL report the prosecution case would be weakened. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 we direct the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur to handover the original copy of the agreement which has been submitted in Civil Suit No. 41/95 to the police within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. He is further directed to keep a certified copy of the said document in the file of Civil Suit No. 41/95. Furthermore, the police is directed to keep the said document in safe custody and to produce it before the civil or criminal Court as and when asked for. 6. With these observations this petition is disposed of .