The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of an accused’s request to send a cheque for forensic examination, ruling that such a plea—made belatedly and without a formal application—cannot be entertained, particularly when it appears aimed at delaying trial proceedings in a cheque dishonour case.
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has observed that no application under Section 243(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the forensic examination of disputed signatures was ever filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. The record reflects that only an oral request was made seeking reference of the cheque/signatures to the FSL. Thus, the very foundation for invoking Section 243(2) of the Cr.P.C. is absent.
The case originated from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued towards partial repayment of a ₹24 lakh loan. The cheque, amounting to ₹6 lakh, was returned unpaid due to “insufficient funds” when presented in January 2017.
The accused contested the complaint, claiming that the cheque did not bear his signatures and had been misused by the complainant. He asserted that the signatures were forged and sought to rely on forensic examination to establish his defence.
During the trial, the accused was granted multiple opportunities to cross-examine the complainant. However, over a span of nearly four years, he failed to avail these opportunities, leading the trial court to close his right to cross-examination in March 2023.
At the stage of defence evidence, the accused summoned a bank official and produced specimen signatures from his account. However, instead of filing a formal application, he made an oral request before the trial court to send the cheque and specimen signatures to a forensic science laboratory (FSL) for comparison.
The trial court rejected this request, noting that the cheque had been dishonoured due to insufficient funds, not signature mismatch. The accused had already delayed proceedings significantly. Expert opinion was not essential when the court itself could compare signatures on record.
The Sessions Court upheld the trial court’s order, observing that the accused had failed to act diligently and appeared to be attempting to prolong the proceedings. It also emphasized that no formal application seeking forensic examination had been filed at any stage.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, examined whether the refusal to permit forensic examination resulted in denial of a fair trial.
The Court found that the accused was granted more than 15 opportunities over several years to cross-examine the complainant but failed to do so, demonstrating a pattern of delay. Although the accused summoned the bank manager and produced specimen signatures, he did not question the witness on the authenticity of the cheque signatures. The cheque was dishonoured for “insufficient funds” and not due to signature mismatch, indicating that the bank did not detect any discrepancy in signatures. The Court stressed that Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a formal application for summoning evidence. The accused’s oral request did not meet this requirement.
The Court reiterated that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is competent to compare disputed and admitted signatures without requiring expert opinion.
The High Court concluded that the request for forensic examination was not bona fide and appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial. It held that both the trial court and Sessions Court had acted within the bounds of law in rejecting the request.
The petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld.
Case Details
Case Title: Yasiv@Yasir Zaidi Versus Man Mohan Arora
Citation: JURISHOUR-627-HC-2026(DEL)
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 7928/2024
Date: 24.03.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Pulkit Agarwal
Counsel For Respondent: Dipanshu Krishan
Read More: CCTV Evidence Contradicting Allegations Leads Supreme Court of India to Quash Criminal Proceedings
