← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1389/2026dismissed

Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh v. Satwinder Singh

2026-05-26Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj4 pages

CRR No.1389 of 2026 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1389 of 2026 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

Satwinder Singh ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned JMIC, Patti in complaint case bearing NACT No.380 of 2023 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act titled as Satwinder Singh vs. Rashpal Singh pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Patti, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to get the alleged handwriting on the body of the cheque in dispute with the handwriting of the petitioner from a handwriting and finger print expert was dismissed and further permission be granted to the petitioner to get compare the alleged handwriting of contents on the cheque in dispute with the handwriting of the petitioner-accused from the handwriting and finger print expert and further prayer has been made for staying the

CRR No.1389 of 2026 -2further proceedings before the learned trial Court during the pendency of the present petition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegations that the petitioner took friendly loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant-respondent on 03.05.2023 and in order to discharge his legal liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.006232 dated 29.09.2023 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn of Axis Bank Ltd., Branch Ghurkwind, District Tarn Taran in favour of the complainant-respondent. It was undertaken that on the presentation of the cheque, the same would be honored. However, on the presentation of the cheque, the same was returned by the Bank vide memo dated 03.10.2023 with the remarks "Funds insufficient".

The complainant-respondent issued a legal notice through his counsel to the petitioner, however the amount was not paid and hence, it was prayed that the petitioner be punished for the offence according to the law under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court and has stated that the he filled the cheque in his own handwriting, while he repeatedly saying that the said cheque was snatched from him during a quarrel and he has never filled anything on the body of the cheque except his signatures.

CRR No.1389 of 2026 -3dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.04.2026. The learned trial Court in its order dated 01.04.2026 has observed that the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the cheque, however, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he does not specifically denied his signatures on the cheque, rather he has stated that the cheque was snatched by Amarjit Singh and others. He has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court has seriously prejudiced the interest of the petitioner, the same being against the principles of natural justice and thus, the same be set aside and the learned trial Court be directed to permit the petitioner to get compare the alleged handwriting of contents on the cheque in dispute with the signatures on the cheque.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance.

4.

Admittedly, the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of the trial, the petitioner filed an application for permission to get compared the alleged handwriting of contents on the cheque in dispute with the handwriting of accused Rashpal Singh from handwriting and finger print expert, however, the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 01.04.2026. The learned trial Court has observed in its order dated 01.04.2026 that when the petitioner admits his signatures on the cheque, it is immaterial whether some other person had made the entries in the cheque or filled it up and even if some other person had filled the cheque, it does not in any way affect the validity of

CRR No.1389 of 2026 -4the cheque. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the cheque, however, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he does not specifically denied his signatures on the cheque, rather he has stated that the cheque was snatched by Amarjit Singh and others.

5.

Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRR No.103 of 2026 praying for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2026 passed by the learned trial Court in the present complaint, however the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.01.2026 with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy before the learned trial Court concerned.

6.

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no justification in the arguments raised before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that he be permitted to get compared the alleged handwriting of contents on the cheque in dispute with the handwriting of petitioner from handwriting and finger print expert once he has not disputed his signatures on the cheque. Hence, this Court finds no merits in the present petition filed by the petitioner and thus, the same, being devoid of any any merit, is hereby dismissed. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 26.05.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No