evidence and so the court below was inclined to allow the application and re-open the evidence. But the court below dismissed the application to summon the documents. It is seen from the impugned order itself that the plaintiff is not an accused in that case. Further at the time of cross examination, the plaintiff had denied any involvement in the crime or any acquaintance with the accused person in that case. The document sought to be summoned are only copies which will be available in the police station as original document would have been produced before the court. Further the nature of investigation conducted cannot be brought in a civil suit. If the petitioner wants to produce those documents, she can obtain certified copy of First Information Report as well as the final report and produce the same before the court, evidentiary value and relevancy of those documents can be considered by the court. So under such circumstances, the rejection of the application to summon, the First Information Report, and final report and summon the station house officer to prove the same cannot be said to be illegal or improper under the circumstances of the case. This court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can very well produce the certified copy of the First
