IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.10.2025 Zorawar Singh Johal ....Petitioner V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Anil K. Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS 2023’) seeking setting-aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/11) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class–II, Jalandhar, in Complaint Case No. NACT-2893-2016 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the defence evidence of the accused-petitioner was closed.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand reads thus:

(i) The respondent-Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the accused-petitioner, after availing a cash credit (agriculture) limit of Rs.80,00,000/- issued a cheque bearing No.504581 dated 20.05.2016 for Rs.48,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala towards partial discharge of liability, which upon presentation, was dishonoured.

(ii) During the course of trial, both the witnesses of the complainant i.e. CW-1 and CW-2 were examined. However, in their cross-examination, they admitted that they were not the handwriting experts; the cheque in question was neither filled nor signed in their presence and that different inks appeared to have been used for the signature and the body of the cheque in question.

(iii) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P/4) seeking appointment of a handwriting and ink expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), SAS Nagar, Mohali, to determine the age of the ink on the cheque in question. The said application was allowed by the Court below vide order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P/5).

(iv) Despite several opportunities the petitioner could not examine the handwriting and ink expert. As the summons to the expert could not be served, the Court below allowed dasti summons, permitted deposit of diet money and granted repeated adjournments for securing the presence of the expert. However, the FSL officials did not come present. Consequently, the Court below was left with no option who vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025, closed the defence evidence by observing that the petitioner had failed to conclude its evidence despite availing of repeated opportunities and more over a period of almost 06 years had already been availed by the petitioner to conclude the evidence.

It is in the above backdrop that the instant petition has come up for receiving consideration before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law as the same has been passed without appreciating the fact that the expert witness sought to be examined by the petitioner was a government official and the said witness was entirely outside the control of the petitioner who could only be summoned through the process of the Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has acted bona fide having taken all the requisite steps to secure the presence of the expert in question and the delay which has occurred was only due to reasons beyond his control. Furthermore, the Court below instead of closing the defence evidence ought to have either sent the cheque in question to the FSL in a sealed cover or have issued coercive process to ensure the presence of the said expert witness. On the strength of these submissions, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order be set- aside and the petitioner be granted one opportunity to produce the expert witness in question.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the appearing for the respondent-Bank has iterated that the petitioner has been gr