HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7665/2025 Pritam Puri S/o Late Vikram Puri, Aged About 54 Years, Puri Baba Ice Cream, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Kanta Puri W/o Late Vishnu Puri, Rani Bazar, At Present R/o 1 K 22, Pawan Puri, Bikaner. (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana Mr. I.S. Rathore Mr. Sourav Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

06/02/2026 The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS against the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 02 , Bikaner, whereby the application under Section

311 Cr.P.C. for calling the handwriting expert has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the Will was send to Forensic Science Laboratory through letter No.2169-70 dated 13.09.2010, however, the FSL Report received is not of the letter which was forwarded by the investigating agency, but of a different letter which is clear from the receipt place on record as Exhibit-3. He states that the letter which was sent in as Exhibit-2 bears letter No.2169-70 and not letter No.2187-88. Hence, in such circumstances the handwriting expert was required to be examined to ascertain as to on what documents he has conducted the forensic examination, as the report is not upon the letter which was forwarded.

It is submitted that so far as the delay is concerned the same occurred due to the pendency of the petitions before this Hon’ble Court, and earlier the proceedings were stayed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.6523/2021, which was decided on 06.01.2025. Thereafter, an order transferring the case was passed by the learned ACJM on 27.02.2025 against which a S.B CRLMP No.2090/2025 is pending before this Court. He therefore, submits that there is no delay on his part as the matter remained pending in litigation. Consequently, his right to examine the handwriting expert cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay which cannot be attributed to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the catena of judgments laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 INSC 322 and Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 9 SCC 286.

This Court has considered the matter and gone through the record.

This court finds substance in the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. The right to cross-examine the handwriting expert cannot be brushed aside casually, when the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the FSL Report. The petitioner has got every right to put forward his defence in the trial.

This court is inclined to interfere in the present matter.

Issue notice.

Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-

State.

Let notice be issued to respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.

In the meanwhile, further proceedings in Criminal Case No.36/2011 shall remained stayed.

Connect with S.B CRLMP No.2090/2025.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

7-mayank/-