Dismissed¶20

Rajinder Singh Dagar v. Devta Enterprises & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./8075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Referring documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory is discretionary; in view of persistent delays in FSL reporting and the present stage of trial, a referral without firm timelines risks derailing the trial. ¶19

Rajinder Singh Dagar Vs Devta Enterprises & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's refusal to forward Exhibits CW-1/K (signatures denied by the accused) to the FSL for verification, in a Section 138 NI Act case at the defence-evidence stage, amounted to an error warranting invocation of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶13

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Handwriting expert opinion can alternatively be led through a qualified private examiner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, and the Court may, where appropriate, undertake comparison of handwritings under Section 73.

¶19

Key takeaways

At the defence-evidence stage, after the complainant has already adduced evidence, the Trial Court's decision to deny FSL referral and instead permit private expert evidence is a balanced course that preserves the right of the parties while protecting trial timelines; accordingly, no error is made out.ratio¶19
No ground exists to invoke jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS; the petition is therefore dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula, order dated 14.11.2025) dismisses CRL.M.C. 8075/2025, wherein complainant Rajinder Singh Dagar sought intervention under Section 528 BNSS against the Trial Court's refusal to forward Exhibits CW-1/K (signatures denied by the accused) to the FSL in CC NI Act No. 5482/2020 (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881), then at the defence-evidence stage. Holding: referral of documents to the FSL is discretionary; given persistent FSL reporting delays and the trial stage, a referral without firm timelines risks derailing the trial; handwriting expert opinion can be led through a qualified private examiner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, with judicial comparison available under Section 73; the Trial Court's denial of FSL referral combined with permission for private expert evidence is a balanced course preserving the parties' rights while protecting trial timelines. Petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 8075/2025 & CRL.M.As. 33713-33714/2025

¶4

RAJINDER SINGH DAGAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. C.P. Malik and Mr. Rohan Bhatia, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

DEVTA ENTERPRISES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 14.11.2025

¶12

The Petitioner is the complainant in CC NI Act No. 5482/2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case is presently at the stage of defence evidence.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the accused has denied his signatures on Exhibits CW-1/K. Though the document were proved in complainant’s evidence and attesting witnesses were examined, it is urged that, to obviate any ambiguity, the documents ought to be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory.¹ The Trial Court’s refusal to forward the documents to FSL, despite the circumstances warranting such verification, has compelled the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.²

¶14

The Court has heard counsel and perused the impugned order. The Trial Court, without entering the merits, noted the heavy pendency at FSLs and the attendant delays and, as a practical course, left it open to the

¶15

1 “FSL”

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2025 at 12:38:05

¶18

complainant to obtain an opinion from a private handwriting expert, if so advised.

¶19

No error is made out. Referring documents to the FSL is discretionary. In view of persistent delays in FSL reporting and the present stage of trial, a referral without firm timelines risks derailing the trial. Expert opinion on handwriting can, in any case, be led through a qualified private examiner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, and the Court may, where appropriate, undertake comparison under Section 73. At the defenceevidence stage, after the complainant has already adduced evidence, the Trial Court’s decision to deny FSL referral, and instead permit private expert evidence is a balanced course that preserves the right of the parties while protecting trial timelines.

¶20

In view of the above, no ground is made out to invoke jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶21

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶22

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/ as

¶23

2 “BNSS”

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2025 at 12:38:05

Rajinder Singh Dagar v. Devta Enterprises & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh Dagar v. Devta Enterprises & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Khatri Vs Jitender Kumar

Dilshad Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Manoj Nhati Vs State NCT of Delhi

Manpreet Singh and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Riyazuddin Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Umesh Kumar Chandeliya and Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.