Delhi High Court - Orders
Swantantra Bhushan Singh Rawal & Anr vs State & Anr on 24 February, 2026
$~23 to 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 1331/2019
SWANTANTRA BHUSHAN SINGH RAWAL & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Soam and
Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocates
with petitioner no.1 in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
State with Ms. Vanshika Singh, Mr.
Bhanu Pratap Singh and Mr. Aditya
Vikram Singh, Advocates
Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Shubham
Parashar and Mr. Fahaad Zia,
Advocates for R-2
24
CRL.REV.P. 1332/2019
SWANTANTRA BHUSHAN SINGH RAWAL & ANR
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Soam and
Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocates
with petitioner no.1 in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
State with Ms. Vanshika Singh, Mr.
Bhanu Pratap Singh and Mr. Aditya
Vikram Singh, Advocates
Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Shubham
Parashar and Mr. Fahaad Zia,
Advocates for R-2
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 25/02/2026 at 20:39:59
25
CRL.REV.P. 1333/2019
SWANTANTRA BHUSHAN SINGH RAWAL & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Soam and
Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocates
with petitioner no.1 in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
State with Ms. Vanshika Singh, Mr.
Bhanu Pratap Singh and Mr. Aditya
Vikram Singh, Advocates
Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Shubham
Parashar and Mr. Fahaad Zia,
Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 24.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 25273/2023 in CRL.REV.P. 1331/2019, CRL.M.A. 25326/2023 in CRL.REV.P. 1332/2019 & CRL.M.A. 25433/2023 in CRL.REV.P. 1333/2019 (By petitioners for sending the cheque/s in question to FSL for comparison with the specimen)
1. By virtue of the present applications, the petitioners seek to send the cheque(s) in question to FSL for comparison with the specimen signature of the petitioner no.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily argued that though an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed before the learned Appellate Court on 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 25/02/2026 at 20:39:59 31.10.2019, the learned Appellate Court without adverting to the same has proceeded to pass the impugned order under challenge.
3. He submits that since all the three original instruments are in custody of respondent no.2/ complainant, it would be in the interest of justice if they are summoned so as to send them to the FSL.
4. In response, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the said issue has already been adjudicated by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 31.10.2019, wherein it has been held as under:
"The counsel for appellant has argued that cheque in question does not bear the signature of appellant No. 2 herein. One letter issued by HDFC bank having signatures of both appellants and details of their joint account is filed with application. I have perused the same and have seen the cheque in question.
The perusal of both letter and cheque in question shows that there is not an iota of difference in both the signatures of appellant No. 2 which can be seen from naked eyes. Even otherwise, it is important to note here that cheque in question was dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" and not for the reasons "Signature differs".
All the banks are having specimen signatures of then account holder and on presentation of any cheque, said specimen signatures are always checked in routine practice. If there was difference of signatures then bank must have given said reason however, since there was no difference in signatures hence cheque in question was dishonoured only for the reasons of "Funds insufficient". The above discussion is made part of the judgment.
The interim bail was granted to make arrangement of amount but instead of same, fresh application as stated above has been moved. The conduct of appellants is well depicted on the file. Several opportunities were granted to him, however, he tried to play hanky-panky with the court also. He has changed his advocate also in the matter.
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 25/02/2026 at 20:39:59 Appellants absented themselves on various dates and NBW was also issued and cancelled."
5. After having heard the leaned (senior) counsel for the parties, and in view of the aforesaid findings rendered by the learned Appellate Court, which has not been challenged till date, the petitioner cannot be allowed to reagitate the same issue twice over again, under the garb of the present application(s). It is also too late in the day, whence the learned Courts below had adjudicated the same on merits vide orders dated 07.09.2018 and 31.10.2019.
6. As such, the aforesaid applications are dismissed.
CRL.REV.P. 1331/2019 CRL.REV.P. 1332/2019 CRL.REV.P. 1333/20197. Renotify for arguments on 10.07.2026.
8. A copy of this order be kept in all the connected matters.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2026/So 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 25/02/2026 at 20:39:59