Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The fact that the aforesaid material has emanated from a criminal investigation does not, by itself, render it irrelevant to the civil proceedings." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 18, 2026, held that a scientific expert opinion and connected material arising from a subsequent criminal investigation can be produced as additional evidence in a civil suit if they came into existence after the closure of evidence and directly relate to the core controversy.

A single-judge bench of Justice Deepak Gupta observed that the production of such subsequent forensic reports does not amount to filling up lacunae in the trial, provided the opposite party is afforded a real and effective opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence.

The petitioner instituted a civil suit in 2011 for a declaration, heavily relying upon a dissolution deed dated March 31, 2008. The defendants contested the suit by alleging that the dissolution deed was forged and fabricated, leading them to examine a private handwriting expert before both parties concluded their evidence by March 2018. In 2023, an FIR was lodged concerning the alleged forgery, during which the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Bhondsi examined the deed and opined that the signatures were forged, culminating in a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). After the petitioner's challenge to quash the criminal proceedings failed before both the High Court and the Supreme Court in 2025, the trial court permitted the defendant to place the Section 173 CrPC report, RFSL opinion, and the court orders on record as additional evidence.

The primary question before the High Court was whether documents and scientific opinions generated during a subsequent criminal investigation can be introduced as additional evidence in a pending civil suit where evidence stood concluded years prior. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the dismissal of a quashing petition in a criminal proceeding can be treated as substantive evidence of forgery in a civil trial.

Caution Required In Exercising Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC

Justice Deepak Gupta observed that while the power to permit additional evidence after the closure of trial must be exercised with circumspection, subsequent developments cannot be shut out if they are indispensable for adjudication. The Court underscored that inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be exercised routinely to reopen trials at a party's convenience or fill up lacunae.

"The Court has to be satisfied that the additional material has a legitimate bearing upon the controversy and that its production is necessary for a just and effective adjudication of the dispute."

Subsequent Material Not Deliberately Withheld During Trial

Distinguishing the present dispute from cases where parties attempt to rectify earlier omissions, the High Court pointed out that the documents sought to be produced did not exist when the defendants concluded their evidence in 2018. Since the FIR was registered in 2023 and the RFSL report was prepared subsequently, the material was subsequent in point of time and was not deliberately withheld during the original trial.

The bench held that the subsequent RFSL examination did not introduce any new issue into the civil suit because the genuineness of the 2008 dissolution deed was already directly in issue. The Court noted that petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (AIR 2005 SC 2119) did not bar the civil court from considering legally admissible scientific evidence that emerged later.

"The subsequent RFSL examination, therefore, does not introduce a new issue into the suit; it constitutes subsequent material concerning an issue which was already directly in controversy between the parties."

Production Of Document Is Distinct From Proof And Evidentiary Value

The Court drew a vital distinction between merely permitting the production of a document and accepting the proof or truth of its contents. Justice Gupta clarified that allowing the RFSL report or the Section 173 CrPC report on record does not amount to a judicial finding that the deed is forged.

The bench emphasized that the respondent must still prove the documents in accordance with the law of evidence, while the petitioner retains the full right to contest their authenticity, methodology, and evidentiary value.

"The mere filing of a report under Section 173 CrPC cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. The conclusions of the investigating officer are not binding upon the civil Court."

Dismissal Of Quashing Petitions Not Substantive Evidence Of Forgery

Addressing the orders dated January 10, 2025, and September 26, 2025, passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court dismissing the quashing petitions, the bench ruled that these orders have extremely limited relevance in the civil dispute. The Court held that the survival of criminal proceedings does not establish the truth of the allegations.

The Court clarified that the refusal to quash an FIR only permits the continuation of the criminal process and cannot be treated as a conclusive judicial finding that the dissolution deed was forged.

"The dismissal of a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings does not constitute a finding, either by this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the dissolution deed is forged."

Right To Effective Rebuttal Under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC

The High Court highlighted that the petitioner had already filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC to lead evidence in rebuttal, ensuring that prejudice is mitigated. The bench directed that this opportunity must be real and effective, enabling the petitioner to cross-examine the handwriting expert and lead rebuttal evidence strictly confined to the new material.

Disposing of the revision petition, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order permitting additional evidence but clarified that the civil court must independently evaluate the genuineness of the deed on legally admissible evidence without treating the criminal findings as conclusive. The trial court was directed to decide the petitioner's rebuttal application strictly within the confines of the additional material without reopening the entire trial.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2026