IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

131 CRM-42683-2025 IN/AND CRM-M-53574-2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 Amit Kumar …Petitioner.

v.

Sharda Devi …Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

CRM-42683-2025 This is an application for placing on record documents as Annexures P-5 to P-7, respectively.

Heard. Contents perused.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the documents, Annexures P-5 to P-7 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-53574-2025

1. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 9.9.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, vide which the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by petitioner/complainant, in criminal complaint No. NACT/613/2021, titled “Amit Kumar v. Sharda Devi’, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the NI Act”), was dismissed. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-

Aforesaid criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by petitioner against the respondent alleging therein that in discharge of legally enforceable debt, cheque of Rs.9 lakhs dated 17.3.2021 was issued by her, which when presented before the bank came to be dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. After complying with the legal statutory formalities, i.e. issuance of legal notice etc., the complaint in question was filed on 21.5.2021.

It is not disputed that before complainant-petitioner closed his evidence, several opportunities had been availed by petitioner-complainant to lead his evidence. Thereafter, the entire incriminating material was put to the respondent-accused, who during the course of her evidence, examined a Handwriting and Finger Expert. The said Expert opined that the signatures of the respondent-accused did not tally with that on the cheque. After the defence evidence was closed, the application in question u/s 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by petitioner- complainant seeking permission of the Court to lead additional evidence by examining a Handwriting and Finger Expert. This application came to be dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 9.9.2025. Learned trial Court was of the view that several opportunities had already been availed by petitioner- complainant to lead evidence and when the case was listed for defence evidence, the application was moved with an ulterior motive to delay the proceedings. Learned trial Court was also of the opinion that once the accused had taken a specific plea/stand that the cheque in question was not signed by her, it was incumbent upon complainant to examine the Handwriting and Finger Expert, at the earliest. Thus, complainant has been very casual in his approach and cannot be allowed to fill in lacunae/gap holes in his story by moving the present application at a belated stage.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the Handwriting and Finger Expert examined by respondent-accused has deliberately favoured her. Moreover, the signatures of the respondent on the cheque in question have been compared with her signatures on the Court file, i.e. power of attorney, bail bonds etc. In order to ascertain the truth and to take the controversy to its logical end, further as per learned counsel, the Expert should have compared the signatures of the respondent on the cheque with her standard signatures available in the Bank record, when she opened her account. Taking his submissions further, learned counsel contends that in the backdrop of facts mentioned hereinabove, if petitioner-complainant is not allowed an opportunity to examine the Handwriting Expert so as to compare signatures of respondent-accused on the cheque in question with her admitted signatures, irreparable loss would be caused to complaina