Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Hema International vs M/S R Sons Traders And Another on 1 April, 2026
CRM-M No.16768 of 2026 (O&M) 1 See AREPHACOSIE4D BREE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.16768 of 2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 27.03.2026 Pronounced on :01.04.2026 M/s Hema International cesses Petitioner Versus M/s R Sons Traders and another eeceee Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Saurav Kanojia, Advocate for the petitioner. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
The order dated 27.02.2026, hereinafter being referred to as 'impugned order' only, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana, hereinafter being referred to as 'trial Court' only, is under challenge in the present petition. By virtue of present petition, filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita 2023, hereinafter being referred to as 'BNSS' only, the petitioner/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as 'petitioner' only, has been sought for the quashing of impugned order.
2. The above mentioned order has been passed by the learned trial Court on an application moved by the respondents/accused, hereinafter being referred to as 'respondents' only, whereby it was requested that the petitioner be directed to give his voice sample for comparison. The learned trial Court by virtue of impugned order accepted the request of the respondents and, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.03 13:10 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16768 of 2026 (O&M) 2 :
2QQEPHHCOSEAD | therefore, petitioner is aggrieved of the above mentioned order.
3. Heard.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a person, who is victim of foul play perpetrated by the respondents, who had issued four cheques amounting to a sum of Rs.4,12,351/- in favour of petitioner, under the assurance that the banker of respondents would honour the same. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the above mentioned cheques when presented before the banker of respondents were dis-honoured, and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, hereinafter being referred to as 'NI Act' only.
5. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the above mentioned case a false and frivolous plea has been taken by the respondents that he recorded a conversation with the petitioner, wherein there is a reference that there was no legally enforceable debt of the respondents towards the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the above mentioned false plea has been raised by the respondents solely to delay the proceedings, and in furtherance of his malafide design the above said application was moved seeking the voice sample of the petitioner, which has been allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the impugned order is likely to result into miscarriage of justice firstly, because the valuable right of privacy is being violated by virtue of impugned order and secondly because the above mentioned order will add to the miseries of the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.03 13:10 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16768 of 2026 (O&M) 3 ae AREPHHC OSI BEERS petitioner, as the same will result into delay in decision of the complaint. While claiming that the burden in the instant complaint is upon the petitioner to prove the existing liability of the respondents, and that there is no reverse burden upon the respondents to show that it had no liability, the permission to the respondents for collection of voice sample and get it compared, will cause unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the complainant and there is no provision under the BNSS or any other law for the time being in force, to insist the petitioner to give his voice sample.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
8. A perusal of record shows that Section 349 of BNSS deals with the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate to pass an order to give specimen signature, handwriting or voice sample etc. Section 349 provides as under:-
"If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Sanhita, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or finger impressions or handwriting or voice sample, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or finger impressions or handwriting or voice sample:
MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.03 13:10 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16768 of 2026 (O&M) 4 ae AREPHHC OSI BEERS Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding: Provided further that the Magistrate may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, order any person to give such specimen or sample without him being arrested."
9. With regard to above, it is relevant to mention here that the similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.' AIR 2019, Supreme Court 3592. In the above mentioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed (before the enactment of BNSS) that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We order accordingly and consequently dispose the appeals in terms of the above.
10. In the light of above mentioned legal provisions if the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it transpires that in the present case one of the important defence of the respondents is that there was no existing liability of the respondents towards the petitioner. To prove the above mentioned defence, the respondents are relying upon the alleged conversation MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.03 13:10 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16768 of 2026 (O&M) 5 ae AREPHHC OSI BEERS with the petitioner. However, during the course of cross-examination the petitioner has denied that the above mentioned conversation was in his voice. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion the factual matrix of the present case falls within the ambit of Section 349 which prescribes that the trial Court may issue such direction. Thus, it is hereby observed that a right conclusion has been drawn by the learned trial Court while allowing the application moved by the petitioner. In my opinion there is no scope for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court, and interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. In view of above, it is hereby observed that the impugned order deserves to be upheld and the present petition being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 01.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.03 13:10 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document