Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajiv Maini vs Randeep Singh on 20 November, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7475/2025, CRL.M.A. 31309/2025
RAJIV MAINI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Dev Sharma, Mr. Anand
Sharma and Mr. Ashish Dutt,
Advocates
versus
RANDEEP SINGH .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 20.11.2025
1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973] on behalf of the Petitioner/Rajiv Maini seeking setting aside of the Order dated 04.08.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC in CC No. 5004900/2016 titled as "Randeep Singh vs. Rajiv Maini", whereby the Application under Section 348 BNSS (corresponding to Section 313 CrPC) filed by the Petitioner to examine the handwriting expert, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Randeep Singh, the Complainant/Respondent has filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") regarding three cheques totalling to Rs.15,00,000/- allegedly issued by the Rajiv Maini, the Accused/Petitioner towards repayment of a friendly loan claimed to have been given in cash, which got dishonoured on account of "Funds Insufficient". The Complainant has placed on record photocopies of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28 one Promissory Note and a Receipt, claiming to have been executed by the Accused, as proof of legally enforceable debt.
3. The Accused has categorically disputed any liability towards the Complainant and asserted that no such amount was ever borrowed. It was stated that the Complainant misused the Cheques, which were given only as security in connection with a Committee business run by the Complainant, and that no dues were outstanding.
4. The Applicant has submitted that it was only photocopies of the Promissory Note and Receipt that were filed with the Complaint, preventing the accused from verifying his signatures at the stage of notice. Later, upon production of the originals at the time of evidence, the Accused immediately contested their genuineness as the signatures were evidently not his. It appeared that the signatures on the Loan Agreement and Receipt were forged. The Accused thus, disputed the authenticity of the alleged loan documents. The defence was corroborated from the Complainant's cross-examination. and a specific suggestion to that effect was put to the witness.
5. It is submitted that filing forged documents before the Court, constitutes an offence. To establish his defence, the Accused sought examination of the documents by an expert and moved an Application for sending them to FSL. However, the said Application was dismissed by the Ld. Court.
6. Subsequently, the Accused independently sent photocopies of the documents to the expert for analysis of the disputed signatures on the Promissory Note and Receipt dated 06.04.2016, along with the cheques, to handwriting expert Shri Deepak Jain, Tis Hazari Courts.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28
7. The Expert vide report dated 12.01.2025, opined that the disputed signatures were not written by the same person, i.e., the Accused/Petitioner. Since the Expert report prima facie disproved the signatures on all documents to be those of the Petitioner, examination of the Expert became essential for verifying the truth. The Expert is a material witness whose testimony is necessary to establish that the documents were forged and fabricated for the purpose of extorting money by misusing the cheques.
8. However, vide Order dated 04.08.2025, the Ld. Trial Court adopted a narrow view and rejected the Petitioner's application for examining the expert.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, which is patently illegal and contrary to law and the material on record, the Petitioner has preferred the present Petition.
10. The grounds taken by the Petitioner to challenge the Order dated 04.08.2025 are that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Complainant is relying on an allegedly forged Loan Agreement and Receipt, while the Petitioner has specifically disputed their genuineness on the ground that the signatures are forged. The signatures on these documents are therefore, directly relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Once it is shown that the Petitioner's signatures are forged, the Agreement itself becomes unenforceable and all proceedings based on it, cannot legally continue.
11. The Ld. Trial Court erred in ignoring the binding principles laid down in Varsha Garg vs. State of MP, (2022) and Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013), which mandates that procedural delays or apprehension of "filling lacunae"
cannot override the right to produce essential evidence. The Apex Court has This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28 mandated that the essentiality and relevance of evidence, must take precedence over subsidiary procedural concerns. The impugned Order overlooks this settled position of law.
12. The Ld. Trial Court misconstrued the Accused's statement given in response to Notice under Section 251 CrPC. The Accused only acknowledged that the signatures appearing on the cheques/promissory notes resembled his signatures, but asserted that they were taken as Security under pressure and denied their contents. This is not an unequivocal admission and therefore, handwriting examination becomes crucial to verify forgery.
13. Furthermore, at the stage of Notice, the originals were not on record; only after seeing the original documents did the Accused realise that his signatures had been forged.
14. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly rejected the Accused's request for FSL examination. Left with no alternative, the accused had to independently seek Expert analysis of the disputed signatures.
15. The impugned Order overlooks that the disputed signatures vary from the very beginning of the Prosecution's case i.e. Loan Receipts, Promissory Notes, and Cheques. Denying scientific verification of the Accused's principal defence of forgery, violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21 and disregards the mandate of Section 348 BNSS, to prevent miscarriage of justice.
16. The Petitioner had two ways to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118 NI Act i.e. (i) by proving non-existence of consideration;or
(ii) by showing circumstances so compelling that a prudent person would infer its absence. Here, the Petitioner discharged this burden by demonstrating forgery on the underlying transaction documents, which voids This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28 the foundation of the debt. The forgery makes the absence of consideration not merely probable, but an inevitable conclusion.
17. The Supreme Court in Kundan Lal vs. Custodian Evacuee Property, AIR 1961 SC 1316, clarified that the presumption under Section 118 NI Act can be rebutted through direct, circumstantial, or presumptive evidence.
18. Hence, a prayer is made to set aside the Order dated 04.08.2025.
19. A Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, which has been taken on record.
20. At the outset, the contentions of the Petitioners are vehemently opposed. It is submitted that the power under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the proposed evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The Ld. JMFC has judiciously exercised discretion in refusing to reopen evidence.
21. Furthermore, the Application was filed nearly nine years after the institution of the Complaint,for which no plausible explanation has been provided.
22. It is submitted that once signatures are admitted, a subsequent plea of forgery is impermissible. The Ld. Trial court correctly held that the accused cannot now retract from his admission and reopen evidence at this stage.
23. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was granted full opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine the witnesses.
24. Reliance on Varsha Garg vs. State of MP, (2022) and Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) is misplaced, as those cases apply only when evidence is truly essential. In the present case, the essential facts are undisputed and the accused's defence has already been fully heard.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28
25. Lastly, the Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act. Hence, the present Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
26. Essentially, the present Petition arises out of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act which are initiated by the Respondent/Complainant alleging dishonour of three cheques purportedly issued by the Petitioner towards repayment of an alleged friendly loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Along with the Complaint, photocopy of a Promissory Note and Receipt were filed, to show the underlying liability. However, the Petitioner has consistently disputed the existence of any such loan and asserted that the cheques were misused, having been originally given as security.
27. Upon production of the original Loan documents during trial, the Petitioner claimed that his signatures had been forged, leading him to seek a report of the handwriting expert. An Application was filed by the Petitioner for examination of the handwriting Expert, butwas dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.
28. Hence, the moot question which arises herein is whether the circumstances warrant the examination of the handwriting expert?
29. In Murari Lal vs. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704, it was held that although Expert testimony is relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, its weight depends on proper proof of the documents examined and the reasons offered by the Expert. It was held as under:-
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28 a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled" "in questions as to identity of handwriting"
is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.
11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinionevidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
30. Furthermore, in Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 it was noted that the scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28 obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results.
31. It was further noted that the power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any court","at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this Section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.
32. In the present case, the Petitioner had no occasion to verify the alleged Promissory Note and Receipt until the originals surfaced, after which he promptly and consistently asserted forgery. The Petitioner has provided a cogent and reasonable explanation for not disputing the signatures at the initial stage, as only photocopies of the Loan documents were filed with the Complaint, rendering proper verification impossible.
33. The defence of the Petitioner has remained consistent,after perusing the original documents.He unequivocally asserted that the signatures were not his. This stance was further strengthened when he independently sought Expert examination, and the Handwriting Expert's report prima facie corroborated his claim of forgery. In such circumstances, it becomes imperative to permit the Petitioner/Accused to examine the Expert witness.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28
34. It has been contended on behalf of the Complainant that this Application is an endeavour to fill the lacunae and to cover the admissions already made by the Petitioner.
35. However, the examination of the Handwriting Expert does not close or restrict the Complainant/Respondent's right of cross-examination. Since the Complainant will have full opportunity to test the credibility of the Expert opinion through cross-examination, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused by allowing the Expert to be examined.
36. One concern which emerges from the submissions of the Complainant is that the Complaint is pending since more than nine years and this is an attempt to further delay the trial. However, delay cannot be a ground to shut out best evidence or to deny a right to the accused to prove his defence. However, to balance the right of the Complainant, it is directed that only one opportunity be given to the Petitioner to examine the Handwriting Expert and no further adjournments shall be given by the Ld. Trial Court.
37. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the present Petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
38. Pending Application(s), are disposed of accordingly.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2025 va This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 20:47:28