Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 83309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mandeep Pannu, J
RAVINDER KUMAR MALIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS – Respondent
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parminder Singh, Sukhdeep Singh
For the Respondents: Sushil Bhardwaj, Bhisham Kumar, Karan Singh Sura, Deepender Singh, Gaurav Bakshi, Nipun Gupta
The power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and specimen signatures under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and based on specific grounds, not as a tool for fishing inquiries or to delay a trial at an advanced stage.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation - Power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - The power to direct further investigation is to be exercised sparingly and only when the previous investigation was unfair, tainted, or materially defective; it cannot be used to fill lacunae in the prosecution case or for fishing inquiries, especially when the trial is at an advanced stage. (Para 10, 12, 13)
(B) Evidence Law - Specimen Signatures - Section 311-A Cr.P.C. and Section 73 Evidence Act - Applications for obtaining specimen signatures must be specific and identify the disputed documents; vague or omnibus prayers without clear purpose or foundation are impermissible and would only serve to delay the trial. (Para 14, 15)
(C) Constitutional Right - Speedy Trial - The right to a speedy trial is a valuable constitutional right that cannot be defeated by allowing belated and unjustified attempts to reopen investigations or introduce new accused persons as an afterthought. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the applications for further investigation and for obtaining specimen signatures of the accused at a belated stage of the trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the fraud case and the specific requests for further investigation and specimen signatures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention between the need for scientific evidence/further probe versus the right to a speedy trial and the vagueness of the applications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. further investigation under section 173(8) cr.p.c. cannot be granted for fishing inquiries or to fill lacunae at a belated stage. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. applications for specimen signatures must be specific and necessary for a just decision, not speculative. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition due to lack of illegality in the trial court's order. (Para 16 , 17) |
MANDEEP PANNU, J
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P-11), whereby two applications, one under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation and the other under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, in FIR No.545 dated 20.10.2009 registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, seeking directions to the private respondents to give their specimen handwriting in the shape of paragraph consisting of all alphabets to prove the factum of forgery of 114 cheques/vouchers and consequent misappropriation of government funds, have been dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that he was posted as Executive Engineer in HUDA Division No. 4, Faridabad, and upon noticing irregularities, he came across a large-scale fraud, involving issuance of fake vouchers and forged cheques during the period August– September 2009, whereby an amount of approximately Rs.1,18,66,441/- was siphoned off from government funds. It is alleged that the said fraud was committed in connivance with private accused as well as bank officials of Union Bank of India, who facilitated encashment of cheques not bearing the genuine signatures of the complainant. The petitioner claims to have acted as a whistleblower by getting the FIR registered and initiating departmental action. It is further averred that during the course of trial, material evidence surfaced indicating the involvement of certain bank officials, namely J.P. Aggarwal, M.M. Mehra, I.D. Sharma and Ms. Vinod Kumari, who had allegedly conspired with the accused persons and cleared forged cheques in violation of RBI guidelines. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that despite availability of incriminating material, including handwriting expert report and documentary evidence, the investigating agency failed to properly investigate the role of the said officials. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation by an independent agency.
3. Simultaneously, another application was moved by the petitioner/ complainant under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking directions to the accused persons to furnish their specimen signatures/handwriting in Court for the purpose of comparison with the admitted signatures of the complainant. It was averred that upon scrutiny of the challan and the judicial record, the petitioner had come to know that the accused persons, namely Jagbir Dahiya, Brij Bhushan, Shyam Singh, R.P. Singla, Raj Kumar Singla, Ranbir and Karambir Singh, were directly involved in the commission of the offence, however, the investigating agency failed to obtain their specimen signatures to establish that the accused had forged the signatures of the complainant, namely Ravinder Kumar Malik, on cheque books, sanction orders and other documents. It was further contended that the said forged documents were used as genuine for committing offences of cheating and forgery and that the truth could effectively be unearthed only by directing the accused to give their specimen signatures in English and Hindi, with pen and pencil, and b
