JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 3.4.2014 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby upon an application moved by the police seeking the original copy of agreement to sell dated 23.1.2014, the learned Judge has handed over the original copy of the said agreement to the police for sending the same to the F.S.L. for its report. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.1.2004, the petitioners and respondent-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had allegedly entered into an agreement to sell. However, as the defendant-respondents were not willing to get the sale-deed registering in favour of the petitioners, on 22.1.2007, the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance. During the course of the civil proceedings, on 9.3.2013 the defendant-respondent No.3, Neelam Kumar Saxena, lodged a FIR against the petitioners. He alleged that the agreement to sell, dated 23.1.2004, is a forged document. For, the signatures of his brother, Naveen Kumar Saxena, are not genuine but are forged. During the course of the investigation, on 11.12.2013 the Investigating Officer moved an application before the Civil Court and prayed that the original copy of the agreement be given to him so that the same could be sent to the F.S.L. for its report. By order dated 3.4.2014 the learned Judge directed that the original copy of the agreement be handed over to the Investigating Officer. It further directed the F.S.L. to submit its report within a period of two months. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the application filed by the Investigating Officer did not reveal the provision of law under which the said application was filed. The application has been filed neither under Section 91 Cr.P.C., nor under Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (the Rules' for short). Secondly, relying on the case of Mahant Deepak Swami v. The A.D.J. (FT) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur & others [2005 (2)DNJ (Raj.) 656] , the learned counsel has contended that the said application could not have been filed under Section 91 Cr.RC. For, section 91 Cr.RC. does not empower the police to summon a document from a court, but limits the power of police to summon a document only from person. For, section 91 Cr.RC. does not empower the police to summon a document from a court, but limits the power of police to summon a document only from person. Thirdly, although Rule 181 of the Rules does permit the police to seek an original document from a court, but in the present case the procedure established by Rules 181 and 182 of the Rules have not been followed by the learned Judge. Fourthly, according to Rule 181 of the Rules the learned Judge was duty bound to seek an order from the High Court before handing over the original agreement to sell to the police for further investigation. However, in the present case the learned Judge has failed to seek the order from the High Court, thus, the learned Judge has exercised a power and vested in him. 4. On the other hand Mr. Rajdeepak Rastogi, the learned counsel for respondent-defendants has relied on the case of Malaram v. State of Rajasthan & another [2013(1)WLC (Raj.)225] , in order to plead that even under Rule 181 of the Rules there is no requirement for the learned Judge to seek an order from the High Court. Secondly, in case requisition is given by a Civil Court, then a copy of the record can be given. Since in the present case the order was passed by a Civil Court, the procedure established under Rule 181 of the Rules has been followed. He has further relied on the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 538] , in order to plead that once an application has been filed under Rule 181 of the Rules, the court cannot dismiss the application. In fact, it has no other option but to handover the original copy of the document to the police for Investigation. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the Impugned order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 5. The moot question before this Court is: What is the procedure to be opted in case the police requires a document for further investigation where the said document is in possession of a Civil Court? Secondly, whether before releasing the document the Civil Court requires an order from the High Court or not? 6. A similar question has arisen in the case of Mahant Deepak Swami (supra) before a learned Division Bench of this Court. Secondly, whether before releasing the document the Civil Court requires an order from the High Court or not? 6. A similar question has arisen in the case of Mahant Deepak Swami (supra) before a learned Division Bench of this Court. However, a bare perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the learned Division Bench has expressed its opinion with regard to the scope and ambit of Section 91 of Cr.RC. It has held that an Investigating Officer does not have the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning a document which is in possession of a Court. The power of the police under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is limited to summoning a document from "a person". It does not extend to summoning a document from "a Court". Thus, the Investigating Officer can summon a is document only from a person and not from a Court. Although a feeble attempt was made by the counsel for the appellant in the said case to plead that the power of the police lies under Rule 181 of the Rules, but the learned Division Bench did not express any opinion with regard to the ambit and scope of Rule 181 of the Rules. Therefore, the case of Mahant Deepak Swami (supra) does not shed any light on the controversy presently before this Court with regard to the interpretation of Rule 181 of the Rules. 7. In the case of Borilal @ Bodilal v. State of Rajasthan [2006(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 549] an application had been moved under Rule 181 of the Rules. However, the said application was dismissed by the concerned Court. Therefore, a plea was raised before this Court that since it was claimed that agreement in question was a forged one, the police was justified in seeking the original copy of the agreement under Rule 181 of the Rules; the said copy should have been given to the police. As the said position was not opposed by the Public Prosecutor, without going into the ambit and scope of Rule 181 of the Rules, this Court merely directed that the copy of the agreement should be handed over to the police. 8. For the first time the scope and ambit of Rule 181 of the Rules was discussed by this Court in the case of Malaram (supra). A Coordinate Bench of this Court opined as under:- 4. 8. For the first time the scope and ambit of Rule 181 of the Rules was discussed by this Court in the case of Malaram (supra). A Coordinate Bench of this Court opined as under:- 4. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in order to obtain an original document which is in the record of the Civil Court, the investigating officer concerned has to seek an order from the concerning court, Civil/Criminal/Revenue/Tribunal/Board of Revenue, etc. The said court is to pass an appropriate order on the application of the investigating officer and thereafter a requisition be issued by it to the concerning Civil Court for handing over the document. The investigating officer has to then place a certified copy of the said document in the record of the Civil Court and receive the original documents for the purpose of getting it examined by the handwriting/finger prints expert from the FSL. On having received the report/opinion from the FSL, the investigating officer is supposed to return the original documents to the Civil Court where it is required for the purpose of civil proceedings pending before it. 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the observation made by the learned court below that during the course of investigation in a criminal case, an original document can be obtained from a Civil Court only by the order of the High Court is erroneous and contrary to the procedure laid down under law. The aforesaid rule very clearly specifies that in case of other than the one mentioned in the rule, a document is to be obtained only when an appropriate order has been sought from the High Court. The provision s does not lay down that in all cases, where original document from the record of Civil Court, etc., is required to be taken by the investigating officer, he has to seek permission from the High Court. 9. The cases of Borilal @ Bodilal (supra) and Malaram (supra) have been followed by this Court in the case of Jasveer Singh (supra). However, in the case of Jasveer Singh (supra) the learned Coordinate Bench has not gone into the scope and ambit of Rule 181 of the Rules. 9. The cases of Borilal @ Bodilal (supra) and Malaram (supra) have been followed by this Court in the case of Jasveer Singh (supra). However, in the case of Jasveer Singh (supra) the learned Coordinate Bench has not gone into the scope and ambit of Rule 181 of the Rules. Thus, so far the only discussion about the ambit and scope of the said rule is available in the case of Malaram (supra).Rules 181 and 182 of the Rules are 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 an 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. 182 Forms of requisitions. - Every requisition for a record or portion of a record shall be made upon the prescribed Form 17. It should also be stated specifically in the requisition why certified copies obtained in the usual manner by the parties will not serve the purpose, and that the proper court fee has been realised." 10. A bare perusal of Rule 181 of the Rules clearly reveals that it can be divided easily into two parts, the first part begins with a prohibition, and lays down that "ordinarily no record shall be issued". Subsequently, the first part contains an exception, clearly laying down "except on the requisition of" and then enumerates the Courts and Tribunals which may send a requisition for seeking a record. Thus, according to the first part, the request has to be sent by the Civil, Criminal, or Revenue Court, or a Tribunal, or from the Board of Revenue, or by the Commissioner of Excise, or by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. The fact that the requisition has to be sent by one of these judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, is further strengthened by Rule 182 of the Rules. Rule 182 of the Rules clearly lays down that every requisition for a record, or a portion of a record shall be made upon the prescribed Form 17. The fact that the requisition has to be sent by one of these judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, is further strengthened by Rule 182 of the Rules. Rule 182 of the Rules clearly lays down that every requisition for a record, or a portion of a record shall be made upon the prescribed Form 17. The prescribed From 17 further reveals that it is a requisition for record sent by one Court/Tribunal etc. to another. It begins with the name of Court from which the record is being requisitioned. The form is addressed to the Presiding Officer of the said Court. It further contains the request "to kindly transmit to this Court the records as specified below". The said Form has to be signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court making the requisition. Even Rule 181 Part-I clearly says that the requisition has to be sent only on an order of the Presiding Officer. Thus, the requisition cannot be made under the first part of Rule 181 of the Rules by anyone except the Courts and Tribunals etc. enumerated therein. Therefore, a prayer made by an Investigating Officer, obviously would not fall within the first part of Rule 181 of the Rules. 11. The second part of Rule 181 of the Rules is general in nature. For, it so begins with the words "in all other cases". Thereby meaning that in case a prayer is made to any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Courts etc. by any other person other than a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Courts etc. enumerated in the first part, then a particular procedure needs to be followed. According to the second part in case the original document is being requisitioned, then before the record is issued, the orders of the High Court shall be taken on the subject. Thus, the original document cannot be issued to any other person until and unless the orders of the High Court are taken on the subject. 12. However, in the case of Malaram (supra) this Court has expressed its opinion that "the observation made by the learned court below that during the course of investigation in a criminal case, an original document can be obtained from a Civil Court only by order of the High Court is erroneous and contrary to the procedure laid down under law. However, in the case of Malaram (supra) this Court has expressed its opinion that "the observation made by the learned court below that during the course of investigation in a criminal case, an original document can be obtained from a Civil Court only by order of the High Court is erroneous and contrary to the procedure laid down under law. The aforesaid rule very clearly specifies that in case of other than the one mentioned in the rule, a document is to be obtained only when an appropriate order has been sought from the High Court. The provision does not lays down that in all cases, where original document from record of the Civil Court, etc. is required to be taken by the investigating officer he has to seek permission from the High Court". 13. With due respect, the observation made by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malaram (supra), prima facie, appear to be contrary to the requirement of Rule 181 of the Rules. For, according to the analysis made hereinabove, it appears that if the requisition is being made by any other person other than a Civil Criminal or a Revenue Court, etc., obviously an order needs to be taken from the High Court upon the subject. Thus, the analysis made by this Court, mentioned hereinabove, is different and contrary to the observation made by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malaram (supra). 14. Since this bench does not agree with the interpretation given by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Malaram (supra), the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) is directed to lay this file before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring the following questions to a Larger bench for its decision:- (1) What is the scope and ambit of Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986? (2) What is the procedure to be adopted in case the police requires a document for further investigation where the said document happens to be in possession of a Civil Court? (3) Whether before releasing the document the Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court etc. requires an order from the High Court or not? Direction given to make reference to larger bench. *******