CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 126 Sandeep Kumar State of Punjab and another CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby (herein) examination of the disputed cheque through the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, was dismissed 2. impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for Finger expert has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. submitted only which w “four” in different handwriting and ink. iterated that who supported this plea -46635-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein) - accused, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 examination of the disputed cheque by Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert through the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, was dismissed Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for examining the Finger expert has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. submitted that the cheque in dispute was originally issued for only which was subsequently altered to “four” in different handwriting and ink. iterated that though a private handwriting expert was examined during trial who supported this plea but his testimony was dis 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46635-2025 Date of decision: 26.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the 5) passed by the learned Additional the application filed by the petitioner accused, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 seeking by Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert through the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, was dismissed ed counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. examining the Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further that the cheque in dispute was originally issued for Rs.90,000/ as subsequently altered to Rs.4,90,000/- by adding the word “four” in different handwriting and ink. Learned counsel has further though a private handwriting expert was examined during trial his testimony was discarded merely on the .2025 The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the learned Additional the application filed by the petitioner seeking by Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert ed counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has has further 90,000/- by adding the word Learned counsel has further though a private handwriting expert was examined during trial, carded merely on the AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- ground that he was a private witness. impugned order is presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled principle of l justice and to ensure a fair trial learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set the cheque by a Government expert to substantiate his defence. strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of for. 3. of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondent 4. perused the available record. 5. this Court in case titled as another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178 -46635-2025 ground that he was a private witness. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled principle of law that additional witness can be summoned in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial at any stage learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside. Hence, the the cheque by a Government expert to substantiate his defence. strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondent(s) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under: “8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge: (I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: (i) The prime factor for considering Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “ just decision of the case.” (ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been 2 According to learned counsel, the unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled aw that additional witness can be summoned in the interest of at any stage. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and Hence, the petitioner seeks re-examination of the cheque by a Government expert to substantiate his defence. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it ) at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and nt whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “appears to be essential to the Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a According to learned counsel, the unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled aw that additional witness can be summoned in the interest of . It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and examination of On the entreated Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court a plea under Section 311 of appears to be essential to the Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court foreclosed by a AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. dire need of mone from respondent No.2 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. In order to discharge his liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.000008 dated 18.09.2017 for an amount of on HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Dhanaula. On presentation, the same was dishonoured with remarks “insufficient funds” which necessitated the petitioner to file a complaint therein that despite demands, no payment was made petitioner claimed he had leased land from the brother -46635-2025 Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. (iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examinati the prosecution/accused. (iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter. (v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. (vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. (II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique f It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide-lines as every case is sui generis (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” As per pleadings of the present case; t dire need of money, took friendly loan amount from respondent No.2 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. In order to discharge his liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.000008 dated 18.09.2017 for an amount of on HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Dhanaula. On presentation, the same was dishonoured with remarks “insufficient funds” which necessitated the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. that the cheque was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds and despite demands, no payment was made petitioner claimed he had leased land from the brother 3 Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such ial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” As per pleadings of the present case; the petitioner, being y, took friendly loan amounting to Rs.4,90,000/- in cash from respondent No.2 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. In order to discharge his liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.000008 dated 18.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Dhanaula. On presentation, the same was dishonoured with remarks “insufficient funds” which necessitated the under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was alleged ue was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds and despite demands, no payment was made by the accused. In defence, the petitioner claimed he had leased land from the brother of the complainant, Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even on of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such ial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a acts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our being in in cash from respondent No.2 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. In order to discharge his liability, the petitioner issued cheque drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Dhanaula. On presentation, the same was dishonoured with remarks “insufficient funds” which necessitated the It was alleged ue was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds and . In defence, the of the complainant, AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- paid part of the amount and issued a cheque of only petitioner (herein) to ₹4,90,000/ supported this claim but the Trial Court rejected the report petitioner was co compensation of Barnala. Sessions Judge, petitioner filed an application disputed cheque by a Government Fingerprint/Handwriting Expert. stated by the petitioner (herein) in the impugned application that he had taken land on lease from the paid a certain amount and as a security, issued a cheque figure of Rs.90,000/ complainant (respondent No.2 herein) misused the said cheque by alterin the amount was also obtained from a handwriting expert who clearly stated that the cheque in question had been tampered. Despite this, the learned Court/JMIC discarded the report of the e seeks permission to have the disputed cheque and other relevant documents examined by the Government Fingerprint & Handwriting Expert. The plea was opposed by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) on the ground that the report of Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert already stand discarded by the trial Court and thus, sought dismissal of the application. After considering the rival contentions, the -46635-2025 paid part of the amount and issued a cheque of only petitioner (herein) alleged the cheque amount 4,90,000/- by adding the word “four” supported this claim but the Trial Court rejected the report petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with compensation of ₹4,90,000/- by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal Sessions Judge, Barnala. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed an application in hand disputed cheque by a Government Fingerprint/Handwriting Expert. stated by the petitioner (herein) in the impugned application that he had taken land on lease from the brother of the complainant for which he had paid a certain amount and as a security, issued a cheque figure of Rs.90,000/-. However, on account of some dispute, the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) misused the said cheque by alterin the amount. Though, before the trial Court/ was also obtained from a handwriting expert who clearly stated that the cheque in question had been tampered. Despite this, the learned JMIC discarded the report of the expert. Thus, the petitioner (herein) seeks permission to have the disputed cheque and other relevant documents examined by the Government Fingerprint & Handwriting Expert. The plea was opposed by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) on the ground the report of Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert already stand discarded by the trial Court and thus, sought dismissal of the application. After considering the rival contentions, the 4 paid part of the amount and issued a cheque of only ₹90,000/-. The accused amount was altered from Rs.90,000/ by adding the word “four” and a handwriting expert supported this claim but the Trial Court rejected the report. After trial, the nvicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, filed an appeal before the Additional During the pendency of the appeal, the accused in hand and sought examination of the disputed cheque by a Government Fingerprint/Handwriting Expert. It was stated by the petitioner (herein) in the impugned application that he had brother of the complainant for which he had paid a certain amount and as a security, issued a cheque by mentioning the . However, on account of some dispute, the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) misused the said cheque by alterin trial Court/concerned JMIC, an opinion was also obtained from a handwriting expert who clearly stated that the cheque in question had been tampered. Despite this, the learned trial xpert. Thus, the petitioner (herein) seeks permission to have the disputed cheque and other relevant documents examined by the Government Fingerprint & Handwriting Expert. The plea was opposed by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) on the ground the report of Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert already stand discarded by the trial Court and thus, sought dismissal of the application. After considering the rival contentions, the application was dismissed by the The accused- from Rs.90,000/- iting expert After trial, the nvicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, dditional the accused- and sought examination of the It was stated by the petitioner (herein) in the impugned application that he had brother of the complainant for which he had mentioning the . However, on account of some dispute, the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) misused the said cheque by altering concerned JMIC, an opinion was also obtained from a handwriting expert who clearly stated that the trial xpert. Thus, the petitioner (herein) seeks permission to have the disputed cheque and other relevant documents examined by the Government Fingerprint & Handwriting Expert. The plea was opposed by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) on the ground the report of Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert already stand discarded by the trial Court and thus, sought dismissal of the application. by the AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- appellate Court examined a private expert and the request was only to fill up lacunae. 7. opportunity to examine a handwriting/fingerprint expert during trial. The trial Cour rejection of the report cannot entitle the petitioner to summon at the appellate stage such a request would amount to allowi his defence, which is impermissible in law. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any cogent justification. the appellate Court perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.In the factual milieu of th an afterthought and lacks 8. the impugned order passed by the opinion of this Court, the application in question by dismissing the same. 9. (i) Sessions Judge, dismissal. -46635-2025 appellate Court on the ground that the examined a private expert and the request was only to fill up lacunae. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already availed the opportunity to examine a handwriting/fingerprint expert during trial. The rial Court duly considered the evidence and returned its finding. rejection of the report cannot entitle the petitioner to summon at the appellate stage with a view to have a second opinion. Entertaining such a request would amount to allowing the accused to fill up lacunae in his defence, which is impermissible in law. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the nce of any cogent justification. In the considered opinion of this Court, ppellate Court has rightly dismissed the application.No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this In the factual milieu of the case, the application in hand appears to be an afterthought and lacks bona fide. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court opinion of this Court, the appellate Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by dismissing the same. In view of the above ratiocination The impugned order dated 17.07.2025 Sessions Judge, Barnala, does not call for any interference and deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 5 on the ground that the accused-petitioner had already examined a private expert and the request was only to fill up lacunae. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already availed the opportunity to examine a handwriting/fingerprint expert during trial. The evidence and returned its finding. The mere rejection of the report cannot entitle the petitioner to summon another expert with a view to have a second opinion. Entertaining ng the accused to fill up lacunae in his defence, which is impermissible in law. Although, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the In the considered opinion of this Court, rightly dismissed the application.No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this e case, the application in hand appears to be this Court does not find any error in appellate Court. In the considered Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by dismissing the same. ratiocination, it is directed as follows: 17.07.2025 passed by the Additional , does not call for any interference and deserves petitioner had already It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already availed the opportunity to examine a handwriting/fingerprint expert during trial. The The mere another expert with a view to have a second opinion. Entertaining ng the accused to fill up lacunae in Although, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the In the considered opinion of this Court, rightly dismissed the application.No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this e case, the application in hand appears to be this Court does not find any error in . In the considered Court has appropriately dealt with the passed by the Additional , does not call for any interference and deserves AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (ii) shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the below shall proceed furthe influenced therefrom. (ii) August 26 Ajay -46635-2025 Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. August 26, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 6 Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the appellate/Court r, in accordance with law, without being Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove Court r, in accordance with law, without being AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document