CRM-M- IN 131 Amit Kuma v. Sharda Dev CORAM: Present: AARADHN CRM-4268 Annexures and the doc just excepti CRM-M- 1. (Annexure vide which Procedure NACT/613 the Negotia 2. noticed her -53574-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA Kumar da Devi AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate f Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advo **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 42683-2025 This is an application for xures P-5 to P-7, respectively. Heard. Contents perused. For the reasons mentioned in he documents, Annexures P-5 to P-7 xceptions. -53574-2025 Challenge in the present pet exure P-4) passed by learned Judici which the application under Section edure moved by petitioner/complain T/613/2021, titled “Amit Kumar v. Sh egotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in sh Relevant facts as emerging ed hereinbelow:- 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-42683-2025 IN/AND CRM-M-53574-2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. ocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for the respondent. for placing on record documents a ned in the application, same is allowe 7 are taken on record subject to a nt petition is to order dated 9.9.202 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Aboha Section 311 of the Code of Crimin mplainant, in criminal complaint N Sharda Devi’, under Section 138 o (in short “the NI Act”), was dismisse rging from documents on record b .2025 ents as allowed ct to all .9.2025 Abohar, riminal int No. n 138 of missed. cord be GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 19:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- filed by pet of legally e by her, whi the remark formalities filed on 21. evidence, to lead his the respond Handwritin of the resp defence evi Criminal P permission Handwritin terms of im view that complainan evidence, proceeding accused ha signed by Handwritin -53574-2025 -2 Aforesaid criminal complaint y petitioner against the respondent lly enforceable debt, cheque of Rs.9 , which when presented before the b arks “Insufficient Funds”. After co ities, i.e. issuance of legal notice et n 21.5.2021. It is not disputed that before nce, several opportunities had been his evidence. Thereafter, the entire espondent-accused, who during the co writing and Finger Expert. The said e respondent-accused did not tally wi ce evidence was closed, the applicatio inal Procedure was moved by p ission of the Court to lead addit writing and Finger Expert. This app s of impugned order dated 9.9.2025 that several opportunities had alre lainant to lead evidence and when nce, the application was moved with dings. Learned trial Court was al sed had taken a specific plea/stand tha d by her, it was incumbent upon writing and Finger Expert, at the earl 2- aint under Section 138 of NI Act wa ent alleging therein that in discharg Rs.9 lakhs dated 17.3.2021 was issue he bank came to be dishonoured wi er complying with the legal statuto e etc., the complaint in question wa efore complainant-petitioner closed h been availed by petitioner-complaina entire incriminating material was put the course of her evidence, examined e said Expert opined that the signature lly with that on the cheque. After th plication in question u/s 311 of Code o by petitioner- complainant seekin additional evidence by examining application came to be dismissed 25. Learned trial Court was of th already been availed by petitione when the case was listed for defenc d with an ulterior motive to delay th was also of the opinion that once th nd that the cheque in question was n t upon complainant to examine th e earliest. Thus, complainant has bee ct was harge issued d with tutory n was osed his plainant s put to mined a gnatures fter the Code of seeking ining a issed in s of the titioner- defence elay the nce the was not ine the as been GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 19:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- very casua holes in his 3. and Finge favoured he question ha power of at the controv should hav her standar account. T the backdro not allowe compare si her admitte is further Handwritin controversy for the just a belated Impugned o 4. opposed the stage, a ple the cheque this scenari -53574-2025 -3 casual in his approach and cannot b in his story by moving the present app Learned counsel for petitione Finger Expert examined by respo ured her. Moreover, the signatures of tion have been compared with her r of attorney, bail bonds etc. In order ontroversy to its logical end, further a ld have compared the signatures of th tandard signatures available in the Ba unt. Taking his submissions further, ackdrop of facts mentioned hereinab llowed an opportunity to examine t are signatures of respondent-accused dmitted signatures, irreparable loss wo rther the submission of learned c writing Expert would also help the Co oversy involved in the present case an e just decision of the case. Simply be lated stage cannot be ground in it gned order suffers from illegality, thus Per Contra, learned couns the prayer of petitioner-complaina , a plea had been taken by responden heque in question and that the signatur scenario, complainant ought to have e 3- nnot be allowed to fill in lacunae/ga ent application at a belated stage. titioner contends that the Handwritin respondent-accused has deliberate res of the respondent on the cheque signatures on the Court file, i. order to ascertain the truth and to tak rther as per learned counsel, the Expe s of the respondent on the cheque wi the Bank record, when she opened h rther, learned counsel contends that reinabove, if petitioner-complainant ine the Handwriting Expert so as ccused on the cheque in question wi oss would be caused to complainant. rned counsel that the report of th the Court in reaching at the crux of th ase and would also be of immense he ply because the application was filed in itself to dismiss the applicatio hus, deserves to be set aside. counsel for respondent-accused ha plainant on the ground that at the initi ondent-accused that she has not signe ignatures on the cheque are not hers. have examined the Handwriting Expe nae/gap dwriting berately eque in file, i.e. to take e Expert ue with ned her that in inant is o as to on with nant. It of the x of the nse help filed at lication. ed has e initial t signed hers. In Expert GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 19:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- at the earlie Expert in h Procedure w been move counsel, w order does Court. Peti 5. the docume 6. through Sec which read 7. inquiry, tria recall and any docum the case. T Hon’ble Su -53574-2025 -4 e earliest. Now, after the accused exa rt in her defence, application under Se edure was moved only with a view to moved at a belated stage and being w sel, was rightly dismissed by the lea r does not suffer from any illegality w t. Petition having been filed without a I have heard learned counsel ocuments on record. Before proceeding further, gh Section 311 of Code of Criminal P h reads as under:- “Section 311. Power to examine person present. Any Court may, at any stag proceeding under this Code, s or examine any person in atte a witness, or recall and r examined; and the Court shal and re-examine any such pers be essential to the just decision Section 311 Cr.P.C. empow iry, trial or other proceeding to summ l and re-examine any person already ocument, if his evidence appears to b ase. The scope of Section 311 Cr.P ble Supreme Court in: 4- ed examined a Handwriting and Fing Section 311 of the Code of Crimin ew to fill in the gaps. The same havin eing without merit, as per learned Sta he learned trial Court. The impugne lity warranting any interference by th hout any merit deserves dismissal. unsel for the parties and have peruse ther, it would be appropriate to g inal Procedure (Section 348 of BNSS to summon material witness, o stage of any inquiry, trial or oth de, summon any person as a witnes attendance, though not summoned a nd re-examine any person alread shall summon and examine or reca person if his evidence appears to it ision of the case.” mpowers the Court at any stage o summon any person as a witness, or lready examined, or to place on recor rs to be essential to the just decision o 1 Cr.P.C. has been explained by th Finger riminal having ed State ned by this perused to go BNSS), ss, or other itness, ned as lready recall to it to tage of ss, or to record ision of by the GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 19:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- It has been be exercise before it al power shou side. 8. 8. petitioner 311 of Cod evidence s material fo effectively of Rs.5,00 Authority, F 9. petitioner prove the si 02.12.2025 Gbs -53574-2025 -5 “Zahira Habibullah Sheikh SCC 374, Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. 461, and Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) s been consistently held that the powe xercised to prevent failure of justice re it all relevant evidence necessary f r should not be used to fill up lacunae Agreeing with the submission ioner-complainant and keeping in view of Code of Criminal Procedure, this Co nce sought to be adduced on the c rial for the just decision of the case a tively decide the controversy between Resultantly, the present petitio ,000/- as costs to be deposited w ority, Fazilka. The impugned order da The learned trial Court is dire ioner-complainant to examine Handw e the signatures of respondent-accused .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 5- heikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) av v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SC (2013) 5 SCC 741 power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. mu stice and to ensure that the Court ha ssary for a just decision. However, th acunae or to cause prejudice to the oth ission advanced by learned counsel fo in view the scope and ambit of Sectio this Court is also of the opinion that th the case file by complainant is ver case and would help the trial Court tween the parties. petition is allowed subject to payme sited with the District Legal Service rder dated 9.9.2025 is set aside. is directed to afford one opportunity Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert cused on the cheque in question. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 2006) 3 4 SCC .C. must ourt has ver, the he other nsel for Section that the is very Court to ayment Services unity to xpert to NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.08 19:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document