Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Trial Court Order, Directs FSL Examination of Disputed Receipt in Cheque Dishonour Case

The Rajasthan High Court held that once a complainant denies both handwriting and signatures on a document, he cannot later claim the document has no nexus with the transaction. The court directed the trial court to send the disputed receipt to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison.

Justice Farjand Ali, sitting singly at the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, set aside an order by the Special Judge (NI Act Cases) No. 7, Jodhpur that had refused to refer a disputed receipt to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for handwriting and signature comparison. The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The trial court had rejected the referral application on the ground that the verification would have no bearing on the outcome of the trial. The High Court disagreed, holding that the trial court's reasoning rested on “wholly conjectural premises” and that expert examination of the disputed document may have a direct bearing on just adjudication.

The Cheque Dishonour Complaint and the Disputed Receipt

The complainant, Virendra Singh, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the accused-petitioner, Vikram Singh. Against this loan, the petitioner had issued cheque No. 568378 dated 25 December 2016. When the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.”

The matter proceeded to trial before the Special Judge (NI Act Cases) No. 7, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 202/2021. Statements of PW-1 Virendra Singh and PW-2 Gopal Singh were recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.

After his statement was recorded, the petitioner tendered a document marked as Exhibit D01A, which he claimed was a receipt pertaining to the very amount that formed the subject matter of the complaint. The petitioner's case was that this receipt was relevant to his defence.

The complainant, however, categorically denied both his signatures and his handwriting on Exhibit D01A. Faced with this complete denial, the petitioner moved an application on 16 December 2025 seeking referral of the disputed receipt to the FSL for comparison with the complainant's admitted and undisputed signatures and handwriting available on record.

The Trial Court's Rejection and the Petition Before the High Court

The Special Judge rejected the referral application by order dated 3 January 2026. The trial court's stated reason was that verification of the complainant's signatures on the receipt would not have any bearing on the outcome of the trial.

Aggrieved by this order, Vikram Singh filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 875/2026 before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Despite service being complete, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, and the matter proceeded ex parte against them.

The High Court's Reasoning on Denial and Document Nexus

Justice Farjand Ali identified a specific legal tension in the complainant's position. The court drew a distinction between two possible stances a complainant could take when confronted with a document like Exhibit D01A.

If the complainant had admitted executing the receipt but explained that it was unrelated to the transaction in question, the court observed, the matter might have stood on a different footing. That would have been a case where the document's authenticity was not in dispute, only its relevance to the complaint.

The complainant here, however, took a different and more sweeping position: he denied both his handwriting and his signatures on Exhibit D01A entirely. The High Court held that such a complete denial, prima facie, disentitles the complainant from subsequently raising a plea that the document bears no nexus with the transaction involved in the complaint. The appropriate course, the court said, was for the complainant to have clarified in his own testimony that the receipt had no concern with the transaction forming the subject matter of the complaint.

Having taken a stand of total denial, the complainant could not simultaneously argue that the document was irrelevant. The trial court's failure to appreciate this distinction was, in the High Court's view, the central error in the impugned order.

The court also addressed the trial court's core reasoning directly. The Special Judge had held that FSL verification would have no bearing on the trial's outcome. Justice Farjand Ali rejected this as conjecture, holding that expert examination of the disputed document may have a direct bearing on the just adjudication of the matter. The impugned order, the court concluded, could not be sustained.

Directions to the Trial Court

The High Court set aside the order dated 3 January 2026 passed by the Special Judge (NI Act Cases) No. 7, Jodhpur and allowed the petitioner's application dated 16 December 2025.

The trial court was directed to send Exhibit D01A to the FSL for comparison of the disputed handwriting and signatures with the admitted and undisputed signatures and handwriting of the complainant available on record. The court specified that such admitted material would include the complainant's vakalatnama, applications, or any other undisputed documents.

The trial court was given flexibility in identifying the admitted documents: it may itself identify them or may require the parties to furnish them. Once identified, both the disputed document and the admitted documents are to be properly marked separately before being forwarded to the handwriting expert. The FSL is to provide an opinion on the similarity or dissimilarity of the handwriting and signatures.

Outcome

The order dated 3 January 2026 passed by the Special Judge (NI Act Cases) No. 7, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 202/2021 stands set aside. The petitioner's application for FSL referral stands allowed. Further proceedings before the trial court are stayed until the FSL report is received. All pending applications, including the stay application, stand disposed of.