Yasiv Zaidi v. Man Mohan Arora - Negotiable Instruments Act Case

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 16, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Yasiv@Yasir Zaidi vs Man Mohan Arora on 24 March, 2026

Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma

Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 17.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 24.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 24.03.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 7928/2024
YASIV@YASIR ZAIDI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Mr.
Anubhav Lamba and Mr.
Shubham Singh, Advocates
versus

                             MAN MOHAN ARORA                                   .....Respondent
                                                 Through:     Mr. Dipanshu Krishan, Mr.
                                                              Karan Batura, Mr. Anmol
                                                              Srivastava and Ms. Tanvi
                                                              Sapra, Advocates

                      CORAM:
                      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
                                                   JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, South-East District, New Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟] in Criminal Revision No. 243/2024, whereby the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 1 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in CC No. 2644/2017 was upheld.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Briefly stated, the respondent had filed a complaint under [Section 138](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1823824/) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter „ [NI
                     Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1132672/) ‟] against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had obtained a
                     loan of ₹24,00,000/- from the respondent in September, 2016,
                     repayable within one month. Towards partial discharge of the said
                     liability, the petitioner is stated to have issued a cheque bearing no.
                     001929 dated 13.11.2016, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Mohan
                     Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road Branch, New Delhi, for
                     an amount of ₹6,00,000/-. It is the case of the respondent that, upon the
                     petitioner seeking time on account of financial difficulties, the cheque
                     was initially not presented; however, after waiting for about three
                     months, the same was presented on 13.01.2017. The cheque was
                     dishonoured for the reason „Insufficient Funds‟, as per the cheque
                     return memo dated 13.01.2017 issued by HDFC Bank. Thereafter, a
                     legal notice dated 10.02.2017 was issued by the respondent to the
                     petitioner, which, as per the respondent, was duly served on
                     11.02.2017. Since the amount remained unpaid, the respondent
                     instituted the complaint under [Section 138](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1823824/) of the NI Act.
   

2. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 19.07.2017,
                     summoned the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance through CRL.M.C. 7928/2024                                            Page 2 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 counsel on 11.10.2018. Thereafter, on 25.02.2019, notice under [Section 251](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/429078/) of Cr.P.C. was framed and the plea of the petitioner was
                     recorded, wherein he stated as under:
   

"Q1 Was the dishonored cheque issued by you?
Ans. No. The cheque in question does not bear my signatures and the other particulars therein have not been filled
by me.

---

                                 Q4         Do you want to say anything else?
                                 Ans.       Yes. I had introduced some clients to the complainant and he had some business dealings directly with the
                                 said persons. The complainant suffered some loss in the same
                                 and now he wants to recover the said loss from me. The cheque
                                 in question was lying with the complainant in blank as I was
                                 earlier working as a partner with him which now have been
                                 misused. Total 5 cheques were with the complainant of which 4
                                 have been misused till now. I have nothing to pay to the
                                 complainant and this is a false case."

1. On the same date, an oral request made by the petitioner under [Section 145(2)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109927775/) of the NI Act was allowed, and the matter was listed for
                     cross-examination of the complainant on 04.07.2019. However, on
                     several dates thereafter, adjournments or exemptions were sought on
                     behalf of the petitioner, resulting in the complainant not being
                     cross-examined. Consequently, vide order dated 10.03.2023, the right
                     of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent was closed, with a
                     direction that in the event of failure to lead defence evidence, the
                     matter would proceed to final arguments. Aggrieved thereby, the
                     petitioner preferred a revision petition (CR No. 191/2023), which CRL.M.C. 7928/2024                                                    Page 3 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated
                     26.07.2023.
   

2. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2023, the matter was listed
                     for defence evidence. On 08.04.2024, the petitioner led defence
                     evidence and examined DW-1, the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank,
                     who produced the specimen signatures of the petitioner. At that stage,
                     the learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral request before the
                     learned Trial Court to send the disputed signatures along with the
                     specimen signatures to the FSL for examination and comparison. The
                     said request, however, was declined by the learned Trial Court vide
                     order dated 08.04.2024, whereafter the defence evidence was closed
                     and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
   

3. In the meantime, the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2024 was
                     challenged before the learned Sessions Court by way of Criminal
                     Revision No. 243/2024; however, the same was dismissed vide the
                     impugned judgment dated 07.09.2024. It was, however, directed that
                     since the statement of the accused under [Section 313](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/) of Cr.P.C. had
                     not been recorded prior to the stage of defence evidence, the same be
                     first recorded by the learned Trial Court.
   

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present
                     petition before this Court.
   

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 4 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
                     impugned judgment dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions
                     Court is legally unsustainable, as it fails to appreciate that the core
                     issue in the present case pertains to the alleged forgery of signatures on
                     the cheque, which cannot be conclusively determined without a
                     comparative forensic examination by the FSL or by a qualified
                     handwriting expert. It is argued that the mere production of specimen
                     signatures by DW-1 is insufficient in the absence of expert analysis,
                     and the refusal to permit such examination violates the principles of
                     natural justice and deprives the petitioner of a fair opportunity to
                     substantiate his defence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
                     consistently disputed the genuineness of the signatures from the
                     inception of the proceedings, including at the stage of framing of
                     notice under [Section 251](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/429078/) Cr.P.C., and thus, the plea cannot be said to
                     be belated or dilatory. The rejection of the request on the ground of
                     delay is stated to be erroneous, particularly when no conclusive
                     finding has been returned by either the learned Trial Court or the
                     learned Sessions Court regarding the genuineness of the signatures. It
                     is also argued that the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine
                     CW-1, thereby prejudicing his ability to challenge the signatures, and
                     even DW-1, the concerned bank manager, has not deposed
                     conclusively as to their genuineness. It is contended that a prima facie
                     comparison of the disputed signatures on the cheque with the admitted
                     signatures reveals material dissimilarities. The learned counsel further CRL.M.C. 7928/2024                                            Page 5 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 submits that under [Section 243(2)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/732011/) Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to
                     seek expert examination unless such a request is vexatious or intended
                     to delay the proceedings, which is not the case herein. It is argued that
                     the denial of this right is contrary to the law laid down in [T. Nagappa
                     v. Y.R. Muralidhar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1006308/): ([2008) 5 SCC 633 and Kalyani Baskar v. M.S.
                     Sampoornam](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327587/): (2007) 2 SCC 258, and amounts to denial of a fair trial
                     under [Article 21](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/) of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, contended
                     that the impugned judgment results in grave prejudice to the petitioner
                     and leads to a miscarriage of justice.
   

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
                     respondent submits that the petitioner has been delaying the trial since
                     its inception by repeatedly seeking adjournments and exemptions from
                     personal appearance before the learned Trial Court. It is not disputed
                     that the petitioner had raised an objection at the stage of notice under [Section 251](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/429078/) Cr.P.C. to the effect that the signatures on the cheque were
                     not his; however, no formal application was filed at that stage, nor
                     even at the stage of defence evidence, seeking examination of the
                     signatures by the FSL. Instead, only an oral request was made by the
                     learned counsel for the petitioner, which was rightly rejected by the
                     learned Trial Court. It is further contended that although DW-1, the
                     Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, was examined at the instance of the
                     petitioner, no question regarding the authenticity of the signatures on
                     the cheque was put to him. It is also submitted that the cheque in
                     question was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" and not CRL.M.C. 7928/2024                                            Page 6 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 due to any mismatch of signatures. The learned counsel further argues
                     that the conduct of the petitioner, as reflected from the proceedings
                     before the learned Trial Court, clearly demonstrates a pattern of
                     deliberate delay. It is pointed out that the petitioner has also failed to
                     appear for recording of his statement under [Section 313](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/) Cr.P.C.,
                     despite being directed to do so by the learned Sessions Court in the
                     impugned judgment and in the absence of any stay granted by this
                     Court. Consequently, non-bailable warrants dated 26.02.2026 have
                     been issued against him. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the
                     present petition be dismissed.
   

3. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
   counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, and
   has perused the material on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

1. The limited question that arises for consideration in the present
   petition is whether the learned Trial Court erred in declining the
   petitioner‟s request to send the cheque in question, along with
   admitted signatures, for forensic examination by the FSL, and whether
   the learned Sessions Court was justified in upholding the said refusal.

2. It is, therefore, pertinent to first take note of the order dated
   08.04.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court. The record reveals that
   after the examination of DW-1, the learned counsel for the
   accused/petitioner had made an oral request seeking examination of CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 7 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 the cheque in question by the FSL with respect to the disputed
   signatures, along with comparison with the admitted signatures
   produced from the bank. The said request came to be rejected by the
   learned Trial Court by observing as under:

"DW-1 Sh. Anshul jain, Bank Manager ICICI Bank, Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate Branch has been
examined-in-chief, crossexamination is treated as nil despite
opportunity given and discharged.

Diet money Rs. 1,000/- paid to the DW-l on behalf of accused.
Previous cost Rs. 2,000/- is paid on behalf of the accused to the
complainant.

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that steps are to be
taken for getting the cheque in question examined from the FSL
qua the questioned signature on the cheque as well as the
admitted signatures of the accused produced from the bank.
Heard both sides.

The reason for dishonour of the cheque in question is
"Insufficient Funds". Further, right to cross-examine: the
complainant on behalf of the accused was closed by the Court as
despite several opportunities given to the accused, no steps were
taken to conduct the cross-examination of the complainant,
therefore, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not recorded
of the accused by the Ld. Predecessor on 10.03.2023. Expert
evidence is only opinion evidence and the questioned as well as
admitted signatures are already available on the record for ready
comparison by the court.

Accordingly, this court is not inclined to give opportunity to lead
expert evidence from FSL to the accused.

Since, no list of defence witnesses has been filed nor any
application under Section 315 Cr.P.c. has been filed on behalf of
the accused.

Accordingly, DE stands closed."
CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 8 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 13. The learned Sessions Court, while concurring with the view
taken by the learned Trial Court, observed as under:

"6. Admittedly, the accused is facing prosecution u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque worth
Rs. 6 lacs. Admittedly, the said cheque was dishonoured for
want of "Sufficient Funds". Accused has admitted, in his
statement recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C., that the said cheque belongs
to him but he denies that the same bears his signatures.
Admittedly, the accused did not cross-examine complainant
despite availing an opportunity u/s 145(2) Negotiable
Instruments Act at the relevant time. The same implies that the
oral testimony of complainant has gone unchallenged and
unrebutted qua all the aspects mentioned in his affidavit.
Admittedly, the accused moved an application for summoning
defence witnesses, whereby he got summoned the records of his
Bank in order to prove his specimen signatures. Admittedly, the
accused did not make any prayer in his said application
regarding forwarding of the cheque in question to FSL.
Admittedly, the accused made only an oral prayer before the Ld.
Magistrate to forward the cheque in question to FSL. The above
facts reflect that the accused was merely trying to buy some
more time by making said prayer. Be that as it may, in view of
the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in L.G. Goyal Vs.
Suresh Joshi and Drs. (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 376, the
revision petition could not be allowed."
14. At the outset, it is not in dispute that at the stage of framing of
notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2019, the petitioner
did take a specific plea that the cheque in question did not bear his
signatures and that the particulars therein had not been filled in by him.

1. However, firstly, the subsequent conduct of the
   petitioner/accused during the stage of complainant‟s evidence is of
   considerable significance. The record reveals that the matter was first CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 9 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 fixed for cross-examination of the complainant on 04.07.2019, and
   thereafter continued to be listed on several dates including 16.09.2019,
   24.01.2020, 06.08.2020, 06.10.2020, 20.11.2020, 01.02.2021,
   10.11.2021, 28.03.2022, 12.05.2022, 27.07.2022, and 16.12.2022.
   Despite the matter being repeatedly listed for this purpose over a span
   of nearly four years, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the
   complainant. On several of these dates, the petitioner either remained
   absent or sought adjournments, and even when present through
   counsel, the opportunity was not availed.

2. The order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court
   records that despite grant of a last opportunity, the learned counsel for
   the petitioner did not appear and an adjournment was sought on behalf
   of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court, after noting the past conduct
   of the petitioner, observed that it appeared that the petitioner was not
   desirous of cross-examining the complainant and accordingly closed
   the opportunity for complainant‟s evidence. Relevant portion of the
   order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court is extracted
   below:

"Case is fixed for cross-examination of complainant but despite
last opportunity the opportunity for cross-examination is not
availed. Perusal of the record shows that notice was framed in
Feb, 2019 thereafter, the case was posted for CE. On 4.7.2019,
16.9.2019, 24.1.2020, 06.8.2020, 06.10.2020, 20.11.2020,
01.02.2021, 10.11.2021, 28.03.2022 accused remained failed to
appear before the court and even on 12.05.2022 case was fixed
for CE and cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed on the accused and
next date was fixed for 27.7.2022.
CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 10 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08
On 16.12.2022, case was fixed for cross-examination of
complainant but on behalf of accused adjournment was sought
due to non-availability of counsel last opportunity was granted
for today but today also counsel for accused has not appeared
and accused seeks an adjournment. It seems that accused is not
desirous to avail a cross-examination of complainant. Therefore,
C.E. is closed."
17. The order dated 10.03.2023 was thereafter assailed by the
petitioner before the learned Sessions Court by way of Criminal
Revision No. 191/2023. The learned Sessions Court, vide order dated
26.07.2023, after examining the Trial Court record, specifically noted
that the complaint pertained to the year 2017, that the petitioner had
appeared in October 2018, and that since February 2019 the matter had
remained at the stage of recording complainant‟s evidence. It was
further observed that despite more than 15 opportunities over a period
exceeding four years, the petitioner had failed to cross-examine the
complainant. The learned Sessions Court also took note of the fact that
even after imposing costs, the petitioner neither complied with the
directions nor availed the opportunity, which clearly indicated a lack
of diligence and seriousness in the conduct of the proceedings. In this
regard, the order 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court
reads as under:

"6. Perusal of the trial court record shows that the complaint
case under Section l38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is of
the year 2017. Thus, it is a six years old matter. The
revisionist/accused was ordered to be summoned vide order
dated 19.07.2017 by the learned Trial Court. Subsequently, it
appears that accused appeared through his counsel in the trial CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 11 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 court on 11.10.2018 and his exemption was taken by his
counsel. Thereafter, again NBWs were issued against the
,accused as he absented himself. Subsequently, on 25.02.2019,
accused appeared and took the bail and since 2019, the matter
is fixed for the cross-examination of the witness of the
complainant.

1. The counsel for the respondent I complainant argues that about 15 opportunities were granted but either the revisionist did not appear or if he appeared through his counsel he did not crossexamine the complainant. Perusal of the trial court record shows that the observations of the trial court bear force as more than 04 years and more than 15 opportunities were granted to the revisionist to cross-examine the witness of the complainant / complainant but despite opportunity being granted again and again he did not crossexamine the complainant. Even on 12.05.2022, a cost of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed upon the revisionist but neither he paid the cost nor cross-examined the complainant. It seems that revisionist herein / accused therein has scant respect for the orders of the court and with impunity, he is not only flouting the orders of the court but when an order closing his opportunity to cross-examine the complainant has been passed by the court he has filed this revision petition."
2. It is also an admitted position that the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court was not challenged any further before this Court and, therefore, the same attained finality.

1. In this factual backdrop, the contention raised on behalf of the
   petitioner that he was deprived of an opportunity to question the
   complainant by closing his right to cross-examine him, particularly
   with regard to the signatures on the cheque, is clearly unmerited,
   inasmuch as the record demonstrates that ample and repeated
   opportunities were granted to the petitioner over a considerable period CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 12 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 of time for conducting cross-examination of the complainant, which
   he failed to avail.

2. Secondly, it is material to note that admittedly, the petitioner
   had moved an application for summoning his bank records in order to
   bring on record his specimen signatures, at the time of leading defence
   evidence. Pursuant thereto, DW-1, i.e., the Branch Manager, ICICI
   Bank, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Branch, was examined on
   08.04.2024. The said witness produced the admitted/specimen
   signatures of the petitioner under the seal and signature of the Deputy
   Branch Manager of the bank, and the same were taken on record.

3. At this stage, this Court notes that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
   in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2024) 4 SCC
   453, has observed that where an accused disputes the signatures on a
   cheque, it is open to him to procure certified copies of his specimen
   signatures from the bank and to summon the concerned bank official
   in defence, so as to question him regarding the genuineness or
   otherwise of the signatures appearing on the cheque. The Hon‟ble
   Supreme Court has further clarified that where such an opportunity is
   available, but the accused fails to put any question to the bank official
   in this regard, the Court is not required to step in to assist the accused
   in collecting defence evidence, as the burden to rebut the statutory
   presumptions lies upon the accused himself. The observations of the
   Supreme Court in this regard are set out below:

CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 13 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08

"14. Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself
admissible under the Bankers‟ Books Evidence Act, 1891 without any formal proof thereof. Hence, in an appropriate
case, the certified copy of the specimen signature
maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to
the Court to compare the same with the signature appearing
on the cheque by exercising powers under Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

1. Thus, we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was
   desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the
   cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he
   could have procured a certified copy of his specimen
   signatures from the Bank and a request could have been
   made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for
   giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of
   the signature on the cheque.

2. However, despite having opportunity, the accused
   appellant did not put any question to the bank official
   examined in defence for establishing his plea of purported
   mismatch of signature on the cheque in question and hence,
   we are of the firm opinion that the appellate Court was not
   required to come to the aid and assistance of the appellant
   for collecting defence evidence at his behest. The
   presumptions under the NI Act albeit rebuttable operate in
   favour of the complainant. Hence, it is for the accused to rebut
   such presumptions by leading appropriate defence evidence and
   the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused to collect
   evidence on his behalf."
   (Emphasis added)

1. In the present case, though the petitioner had taken the initial step of summoning the bank record and examining DW-1, the said opportunity was not meaningfully utilised by him. The testimony of DW-1 is extracted hereunder:

"I have brought the admitted signatures of the accused Yasiv
Zaidi under the seal and signature of the Dy. Branch Manager, CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 14 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 ICiCI Bank pertaining to account no. 135701510052
maintained at ICICI Bank, Mohan Co-operative Branch which is
Ex.OWI/I having the signatures of the accused at pOint "AU.
The original Ex.OWl/l Is taken on record in CC No. 2644/2017
whereas the photocopies of Ex.DW1/1 are taken on record in CC
no. 2645/2017, 2646/2017 and 2647/2017."
23. A perusal of the same shows that no question whatsoever was
put to DW-1 by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused with
respect to the authenticity or otherwise of the signatures on the cheque
in question vis-à-vis the specimen signatures produced from the bank. In this Court‟s opinion, once such a defence had been taken by the
petitioner, and the bank official was available in the witness box along
with the relevant record, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
confront the witness on this aspect, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat (supra);
however, no such effort was made by him.

1. The contention now sought to be raised on behalf of the
   petitioner that DW-1 did not depose conclusively regarding the
   signatures on the cheque cannot be appreciated, as the record itself
   reflects that no question in this regard was put to DW-1. The
   petitioner, therefore, had the opportunity to utilise the evidence of the
   bank official to support his defence, but chose not to do so.

2. Thirdly, concededly, the cheque in question was dishonoured
   on the ground of "Insufficient Funds" and not on account of any
   mismatch of signatures. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in S. Minz CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 15 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 v. Madhu Bala Gupta: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2936, while relying
   upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in L.C. Goyal v.
   Suresh Joshi: (1999) 3 SCC 376, has observed that where a cheque is
   dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and not on account of
   signature mismatch, reference of the disputed signatures to a
   handwriting expert may not be warranted. In such circumstances, the
   most relevant and competent witness would be the concerned Bank
   Manager. The relevant portion of the decision reads as under:

"6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I
am in agreement with the observations of the learned MM. The
bank had not disputed the signatures of the petitioner on the
cheque. The cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds in the account of petitioner. The judgment of kalyani
Bhaskar (Supra) is clearly distinguishable from the present
case, as in that case the bank manager, during
cross-examination had clearly stated that the signatures on
the cheque had not been verified by the bank at the time of
dishonor of the cheque. No such statement has been made by
the bank official in his examination before the learned MM.
Further in the case of P.R. Ramakrishnan (Supra), the Madras
High Court had allowed the petition for verification of
signatures on cheque on the facts of that case, as the reasons
given by the trial Court for dismissing the application of the
petitioner for verification of the signature, was delay in filing of
the application, which was not considered justified. The learned
MM in the present case has given sufficient and cogent reasons
for dismissing the application of the petitioner.

1. In the case of L.C. Goyal (Supra) the Supreme Court observed in para (8) of its judgment observed as under:

"The complainant alleged that when the appellant realized
that the complainant has come to know that he has
misappropriated a sum of Rs. 25,491, he gave a cheque for a
sum of Rs. 38,000 which is Ext.C-4. The said cheque was
drawn on UCO Bank and the same was deposited in the CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 16 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 Central Bank of India in the account of Union, viz., Siemens'
Employees Union, New Delhi. But the said cheque was
dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant denied
his signature on Ext. C-4 and contended that his signature
was forged by the complainant. It is in this context that it
was urged before the Bar Council of India that some
handwriting expert be examined in order to find out the
genuineness of the signature on Ext. C-4. As stated above,
the cheque bounced not on account of the fact that the
signature on Ext. C-4 was not tallying with the specimen
signature of the appellant kept with the Bank, but on account
of insufficient funds. Had the signature on Ext. C-4 been
different, the bank would have returned the same with
the remark that the signature on Ext. C-4 was not
tallying with the appellant's specimen signature kept
with the bank. The memos Ext. C-6 and Ext. C-8 issued
by the bank clearly show that signature of the appellant
on Ext, C-4 was not objected to by the bank, but the
same was returned with the remark "insufficient fund".
This circumstance shows that the signature on Ext. C-4
was that of the appellant."

1. In the case of Manda Syamsundra v. Kurella Anjaneyachari 2009 (1) DCR 726, the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied upon the case of HM Satish v. B.N. Ashok 2007 (3) Crimes 502 and L.C. Goyal (supra) and held thus;

"In the light of the above decisions and in the light of the
return of the cheque not on the ground of signature not
tallying, no purpose will be served in sending the
document to the handwriting expert and there are no
grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court."
9. This Court recently in the case of Kashi Ram Bansal (supra)
also relied upon the decision of L.C. Goyal (supra) and held that
in the case of denial of signature by the drawer of a cheque,
the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and
not a handwriting expert.

1. In view of the above observations, I find no infirmity with the order of the learned MM. Hence the petition is dismissed."

(Emphasis added) CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 17 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08

1. Thus, on this ground also, this Court is of the view that the
   petitioner had sufficient opportunity to question the Bank Manager
   regarding the authenticity of the signatures on the cheque, particularly
   when the said witness was examined as DW-1 at his own instance. The
   petitioner, being fully aware of his defence that the signatures were
   forged, had every occasion to put relevant questions to the Bank
   Manager on this aspect. However, despite such opportunity, no
   suggestion or question was put to the witness concerning the
   genuineness of the signatures.

2. Fourthly, before this Court, it has been argued on behalf of the
   petitioner that the request for sending the cheque/signatures for
   forensic examination should have been allowed in view of Section
   243(2) of the Cr.P.C., and in this regard, reliance has been placed on
   decisions in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (supra) and Kalyani
   Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (supra).

3. In this regard, this Court notes that Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C.
   provides as under:

"243. Evidence for defence.--

(1) x x x
(2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies
to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the
attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or
cross-examination, or the production of any document or other
thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he
considers that such application should be refused on the ground
that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for
defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 18 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 by him in writing;
Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the
opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on
his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be
compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied
that it is necessary for the ends of justice..."

1. Thus, the Court, at the stage of defence evidence, is empowered
   to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness or for
   production of any document or other material, upon an application
   made by the accused. The provision, however, clearly contemplates
   the filing of a formal application, and further vests discretion in the
   Court to reject such an application by recording reasons, where it
   appears that the application is vexatious, intended to cause delay, or is
   otherwise aimed at defeating the ends of justice.

2. In the present case, it is material to note that no such application
   under Section 243(2) of the Cr.P.C. was ever filed by the petitioner
   before the learned 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. It is further noted by this Court that the judgments
   relied upon by the petitioner were rendered in cases where specific
   applications under Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. had been filed and were
   adjudicated upon. The said decisions, therefore, do not advance the
   case of the petitioner in the present factual matrix, where no such
   application was ever moved.

CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 19 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 31. Even otherwise, assuming that the oral request of the petitioner
in this regard is to be considered, it is well settled, as held by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (supra),
that the Court, being the master of proceedings, must assess whether
such a request is bona fide and whether the evidence sought to be
brought on record is relevant, and ensure that the accused is not
allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial. Further, to reiterate, Section
243(2) of Cr.P.C. itself provides that Court can reject a request where
it appears that the same is vexatious, intended to cause delay, or is
otherwise aimed at defeating the ends of justice.

1. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court
   finds that the request made by the petitioner was clearly intended to
   cause delay in the present proceedings. The petitioner was fully aware
   of his defence - that he had not put the signatures on the cheque in
   question. Despite being fully aware of his defence, the petitioner failed
   to avail the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on this
   aspect, and as noted in preceding discussion, the matter remained at
   the stage of complainant‟s evidence for a considerable period,
   however, the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity, and his right
   to cross-examine the complainant ultimately stood closed. Further,
   when the Bank Manager was examined as DW-1 at the instance of the
   petitioner himself, no question whatsoever was put to the said witness
   regarding the alleged discrepancy in signatures. Additionally, as
   already noted, the cheque in question had been dishonoured on CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 20 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 account of "Insufficient Funds" and not due to any signature
   mismatch. In these circumstances, the belated oral request made
   before the learned Trial Court, without even filing a formal
   application, appears to be an attempt to delay the proceedings rather
   than to bring any material evidence on record.

2. Lastly, this Court is of the view that Section 73 of the Indian
   Evidence Act, 1872 empowers the Court to ascertain whether a
   signature, writing, or seal has been made by the person by whom it
   purports to have been made. For this purpose, the Court is competent
   to compare the disputed signature, writing, or seal with any signature,
   writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be
   that of such person, even if the same has not been produced or proved
   for any other purpose. The reasoning recorded by the learned Trial
   Court indicates that it was inclined to exercise the powers vested in it
   under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the order dated
   08.04.2024 records that both the admitted signatures as well as the
   disputed signatures were already on record for ready comparison by
   the Court.

3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no infirmity
   in the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned
   Sessions Court and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Trial
   Court, inasmuch as the cheque in question was dishonoured on
   account of "Insufficient Funds" and not due to any signature CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 21 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08 mismatch, the petitioner failed to avail several opportunities to
   cross-examine the complainant despite the matter remaining pending
   at the stage of complainant‟s evidence for a period of about four years,
   no questions were put to the Bank Manager (DW-1) on the aspect of
   alleged forgery of signatures, no application under Section 243(2) of
   the Cr.P.C. was ever filed and only a belated oral request was made,
   which appears to be intended to delay the proceedings, and in any
   event, the learned Trial Court is well within its powers under Section
   73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the admitted and disputed
   signatures already on record, and accordingly, the impugned orders
   are upheld.

4. In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
                     application, if any, is also disposed of as infructuous.
   

5. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an
                     expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
   

6. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
   

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MARCH 24, 2026
TD/rb CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 Page 22 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:46:08