SARRAF, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present controversy may be stated thus: Mr. Mahipal Singh, Additional S. P. CID (C. B.) Rajasthan, Jaipur by his letter dated 4. 5. 2007 made a prayer before this Court for getting the cheques Nos. 332722, 332723 and 332724 dated 7. 8. 2003 as the cheques were required in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 168/2004 pending investigation at the Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur. The prayer was considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 1. 10. 2007 and the following order was passed:-      " Copy of letter of the Investigating Officer which was sent to this Court dated 4th May, 2007 be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor who may seek instructions from the Investigating Officer in the matter and make submissions on the next date. List on 25th October, 2007. "
(2.) PURSUANT to the above order learned Public Prosecutor has filed an application on 21. 11. 2007 praying therein that the aforementioned three cheques be made available to the investigating officer so that the matter may be investigated. Learned counsels for the appellants have opposed this prayer. Heard learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. P. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta along with Mr. Manoj Sharma learned counsels for the complainants appellants. The controversy herein is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (6) RRD 1924 (Raj. ). In that case, it was claimed by the appellants that the Will which ultimately came to be filed on the record was forged one and, therefore, the producer of the Will should be prosecuted for reliying on a forged document. The appellant not getting the desired relief filed a criminal complaint and the same was forwarded by the Magistrate to the concerned police station under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. The investigating officer asked the respondent to produce the Will which was not done by the respondent. Consequently, an application of the appellant came before the Court for handing over the documents to the investigating agency. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal observing as under:-      " A reading of Section 91 Crpc shows that an officer of the police is to give a written order to the person in whose possession or power a document or a thing is believed to be, requiring him to produce it. Admittedly, the document in question presently is in possession of the Court trying the civil suit. If the literal meaning is given to the language of Section 91 Cr. P. C. then the police officer investigating a case will have to make an order for production of the document. If this aspect is considered to be imperative, then it would mean that this section authorises the police official to issue an order to a Court. In our considered opinion, such powers cannot be conceived to be vested in a police officer under Section 91 Crpc. It cannot be said that an officer of the police station has been vested with powers to issue orders to a Court. Reliance as placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the provisions of Section 91 Crpc appears to be misplaced. It may here be noticed that summons/orders under Section 91 Crpc is meant to be issued to a person. The Court cannot be construed to be a person. Police officer issuing orders cannot be construed to be an officer competent to issue any such orders to a Court, for production of any document. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not an argument in consonance with the language used in Section 91, Crpc, If police can be seen to be empowered to issue orders to a Court, it will lead to a situation which cannot be appreciated. The powers under Section 91 Crpc as to be exercised in the manner prescribed only and not otherwise. That means police is empowered to issue orders for production. No orders can be issued to a Court by a police official. Summons can only be issued by Court. Thus, in this case, recourse to Section 91 Cr. P. C. is not available. " On the basis of the above observations since the recourse to the provisions contained in Section 91 Cr. P. C. is not available to the Investigating Officer, therefore, the cheques in question cannot be handed over to him.
(3.) THE application stands dismissed. .;