ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 30.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.384/2017 rejecting the application filed under Section 254 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner/complainant herein had filed PCR No.241/2015 against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC stating that she is an old aged lady and she is in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the land situated in Sy.No.270/P2 of Devarunda Village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk. It is contended that after the death of her husband, the khatha of the schedule property has been mutated in her name and her children are in occupation and cultivation of the same. Now, on verification it is found that the khatha in respect of Sy.No.270/P2 stands in the name of accused No.2. Taking undue advantage of the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 colluded with accused No.4, who is the Surveyor have created false documents of issuance of notice and also drawing the mahazar got phodi in their name. Hence, the complaint was filed. The Trial Judge referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the police have filed the ‘B’ report and the same has been questioned and the Trial Judge has taken the cognizance and issued the process after recording sworn statement. An application was filed under Section 254 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the complainant praying the Court that there is a dispute with regard to thumb impression found in the notice and mahazar and to send the same for scientific examination. The same came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. The grounds urged in the petition is that to ascertain whether there is an thumb impersonation and forgery of the thumb impression of the complainant in the case, the same has to be sent to the FSL and scientific report is necessary. The learned Judge while rejecting the application assigned two reasons. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. The grounds urged in the petition is that to ascertain whether there is an thumb impersonation and forgery of the thumb impression of the complainant in the case, the same has to be sent to the FSL and scientific report is necessary. The learned Judge while rejecting the application assigned two reasons. The first reason is that the complainant is not examined before the Trial Court and she has to come and depose before the Court that the thumb impression found on the notice and also the mahazar does not pertain to her. The other reason given by the Trial judge is that the documents before the Court is only the certified copy and based on the certified copy, the same cannot be sent to the scientific expert. 5. Having perused the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Judge in rejecting the application. First of all, the complainant did not appear before the Court and give the evidence denying the thumb impression. Based on the certified copy of the documents, the scientific report cannot be obtained. However, the petitioners can examine themselves to substantiate their case before the Court and also secure the original documents by making necessary application before the Trial Judge and thereafter the documents can be sent to the FSL, provided if necessary to send the same. The Trial Judge can consider the request, if such an application is filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court. 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.