Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Ordered Solely Based On Handwriting Expert Report When Civil Suit Is Pending: Madras High Court

"Opinion of a handwriting expert is only a relevant piece of evidence and not conclusive in nature... the forwarding of complaint by the learned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS solely based on the handwriting expert's report, which is also the subject matter of adjudication in the civil suit, is erroneous", Madras High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot forward a complaint for police investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) based exclusively on a handwriting expert’s report when the genuineness of the document is already under challenge in a civil suit.

Justice C. Kumarappan, in a ruling, observed that handwriting comparison is not an exact science and an expert opinion is merely advisory, not conclusive proof of forgery at the stage of initiating criminal proceedings.

The case involved a dispute over a Sale Agreement dated May 28, 2020, which the second respondent alleged was fabricated and antedated by the petitioners. A civil suit regarding the property was already pending where the genuineness of the signature of the deceased vendor was a primary issue. Based on a Forensic Examination Report suggesting the signature was forged, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, had forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation and a final report.

The primary issue before the court was whether a Magistrate is justified in forwarding a complaint under Section 175(3) of BNSS for investigation when the allegation of forgery is based solely on a handwriting expert's report. The court was also called upon to determine if parallel criminal proceedings are permissible when the same document's validity is being adjudicated in a civil forum.

Court Distinguishes Prima Facie Case From Sole Reliance On Expert Opinion

The court noted that while the respondent relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Accamma Sam Jacob Vs. State of Karnataka, that case was distinguishable as the allegations there were supported by other surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the entire criminal allegation stemmed solely from the handwriting expert’s opinion. The bench noted that a Magistrate must ensure a complaint discloses prima facie ingredients of a cognizable offence beyond just a contested expert report.

Handwriting Comparison Is Not An Exact Science

Justice Kumarappan emphasized that handwriting comparison does not carry the same evidentiary weight as fingerprint or thumb impression analysis. The bench observed that "such an opinion cannot be treated as conclusive proof, particularly when the science of handwriting comparison is not as exact science as that of thumb impression analysis." Consequently, the court found the Magistrate’s reliance on such a report to trigger criminal law to be misplaced.

"The science of handwriting comparison is not as exact science as that of thumb impression analysis."

Precedent On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings

The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2020), which dealt with a factually identical situation. In that case, the Apex Court had held that FIRs based solely on handwriting reports while civil suits are pending ought to be quashed. The High Court reiterated that continuing such criminal proceedings would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stands taken by them in the ongoing civil litigation.

Expert Evidence Is Advisory And Subject To Trial

The bench noted that under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (now corresponding to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), an expert's opinion is relevant but not conclusive. It is always open to the parties to adduce evidence to disprove such opinions during a trial. Furthermore, the court noted that the judiciary possesses the power to compare signatures independently to form its own opinion, making the expert report a mere tool rather than a final verdict.

Abuse Of Process To Initiate FIR On Limited Evidence

The Court concluded that the Magistrate's direction to forward the complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS based only on the expert report was erroneous. It held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, especially since a previous similar complaint had already been dismissed before the expert report was obtained.

"Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered... it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit."

The High Court set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, which had directed the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. The revision petition was allowed, protecting the petitioners from criminal investigation while the civil dispute over the document's genuineness remains pending. The court clarified that the expert's report must be tested within the rigors of the civil trial rather than serving as the sole basis for a criminal prosecution.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026