138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert

“Section 138 NI Act Cases Should Ordinarily Be Referred To Mediation To Achieve Quick Recovery”, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused in a cheque dishonour case cannot seek examination of a handwriting expert at the final stage of trial merely to delay the proceedings, especially when the plea of forged signatures was never taken earlier in the defence.

On 10 March 2026, Justice Anoop Chitkara dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, which had refused permission to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court held that the application for additional evidence was filed at a belated stage after numerous opportunities had already been granted to the accused to lead defence evidence and was clearly intended to protract the trial.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Kulbir Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of a cheque amounting to ₹19,49,230 issued by the accused Sonu Kumar in connection with business transactions between the parties. The cheque was returned unpaid with the remark “payment stopped by drawer.”

During the trial, the accused moved an application seeking permission to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert to compare the complainant’s alleged signatures on a Power of Attorney with signatures appearing in the register of a Notary Public.

The Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on 3 October 2025. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused approached the High Court through a revision petition.

Belated Expert Evidence

The High Court noted that the trial court had already granted the accused fifteen opportunities to conclude his defence evidence. Despite this, the accused sought to introduce expert evidence at the final stage of trial.

The Court observed: “The accused did not take any such stand regarding the wrong or forged signatures on the Power of Attorney in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.”

The Court held that raising such a plea at the final stage of proceedings amounted to an afterthought designed to delay the trial.

The Court further noted that the comparison sought by the accused was between a document produced in original and a photocopy of the notary register, which is legally impermissible.

The Court held: “On the face of it, the trial is at the final stage and the entire exercise is to delay the trial.”

Accordingly, the Court found no illegality in the trial court’s order refusing permission to examine the handwriting expert.

Nature And Purpose Of Section 138 NI Act

While dismissing the revision petition, the Court elaborated on the nature of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court observed that cheque dishonour proceedings arise from failure to honour financial obligations and are intended to maintain trust in commercial transactions.

The Court noted: “Issuing a cheque is a solemn promise that the amount will be paid when presented. When such a cheque is returned unpaid, the law considers it a breach of financial trust.”

The Court further observed that although Section 138 proceedings are criminal in form, they primarily aim at compensating the holder of the cheque.

Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court described such proceedings as: “A civil sheep in a criminal wolf’s clothing.”

Compounding Of Offences Under NI Act

The Court reiterated that offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable at any stage of the proceedings.

Referring to Section 147 of the Act, the Court observed: “The legislative intention is not to make people suffer incarceration merely because their cheques bounced.”

The Court explained that parties may compound the offence even during trial, appeal or revision proceedings, and the primary objective of the law is recovery of the cheque amount rather than punishment.

Court On Need For Mediation In Cheque Bounce Cases

The High Court emphasised the increasing burden of cheque bounce cases on criminal courts and highlighted mediation as an effective mechanism for resolving such disputes.

The Court observed: “Cheque bounce cases are quasi-criminal in nature: punitive yet primarily aimed at compensating the holder of the cheque.”

The Court stated that early mediation could ensure quicker recovery for the complainant while also reducing the burden on courts.

Referring to the Mediation Act, 2023, the Court noted that disputes involving compoundable offences, including those under Section 138 NI Act, can be referred to mediation by courts at any stage of proceedings.

The Court observed that mediation provides a platform for dialogue and settlement rather than adversarial litigation.

The Court stated: “Mediation does not weaken justice; it strengthens it by delivering timely, balanced, and commercially sensible results.”

Directions To Refer NI Act Matters To Mediation

In an important observation, the Court suggested that trial courts and sessions courts dealing with Negotiable Instruments Act cases should ordinarily refer such matters to mediation after service of the accused.

The Court stated that mediation could facilitate settlement, preserve commercial relationships and help reduce the backlog of cheque dishonour cases.

Decision

While upholding the trial court’s decision rejecting the request for examination of a handwriting expert, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

However, the Court requested the concerned Magistrate to refer the dispute to mediation. It directed that if mediation fails to result in a settlement within 30 days, the trial proceedings should continue in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 10 March 2026