CRM-M-61947-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CRM-M-61947-2018 Decided on : 27.07.2026 Ashok Kumar . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Kailash Chand . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the respondent **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of impugned order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) whereby application of the petitioner dated 15.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) for taking voice sample of the respondent and sending that voice sample and voice in the C.D. produced by the petitioner (Ex. DA) to the FSL Madhuban for comparison and seeking report, has been dismissed in the complaint case bearing No. NACT 41 of 2016 dated 28.01.2016 filed by the respondent. 2. Considering the application, learned trial Court vide its order dated 30.11.2018 observed that procedure followed in the Act is a summary procedure and there is no provision in the Act under which matching of the voice sample with the C.D. can be done. Further, it is observed that it is the petitioner (accused REENA 2026.07.28 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-61947-2018 before trial Court), who can prove his case by leading any the cogent evidence in his defence has moved application to cause delay in proceeding and thereto same was dismissed by the trial Court. 3. Prime objection of learned counsel for the respondent is that petitioner can not ask to the Court to create the evidence, which may prove his defence version, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order and petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the ongoing procedure, which is adopted by the Courts, with the changed provisions of law incorporated in the new statute i.e. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023). Section 349 of BNSS, 2023 reads as under: 349. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, etc. 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: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. 5. Since in the absence of any specific provision/procedure in the Cr.P.C., certain difficulties were being realized, legislature found it appropriate REENA 2026.07.28 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-61947-2018 that in the new procedural law such a provision can be incorporated, so that the accused, if wants to prove a genuine defence or even any one else, or any other person, it may not be denied being there no remedy available. Otherwise also, the principle of criminal jurisprudence is not to create impediments in the procedural law to reach to the logical conclusion at the end of trial. As far as the evidence is concerned, petitioner is equipped with the evidence, as he has already recorded the version in Compact Disc (C.D.). His difficulty is that he is not having voice sample with him and for that it is upon the Court for imparting justice, the respondent/complainant can be directed to give voice sample before the Court itself. Otherwise also, enabling provisions since have been incorporated. Though much later, being beneficial provision under law, but once the trial has not been culminated, it would be apt to accept the application and then to proceed further. 6. In view of the above, impugned order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P- 4) is set aside and petitioner may move another application under the new provision and same would be decided by trial Court afresh in accordance with law and also in view of the observations recorded here above. 7. Petition stands disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. July 27, 2026 (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE reena Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No REENA 2026.07.28 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh