The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by the accused, holding that a prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and reiterated that handwriting expert opinion is merely opinion evidence that must be corroborated.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, Nand Lal, a partner of the firm Tee & Tee Healthcare, alleged that partners Vinod Gupta, Madhu Gupta, Naveen Gupta and Sumit Gupta forged his signature on a cheque of Rs 60,00,000 issued to M/s Passim Medichem Agency. The cheque was honoured and the amount was debited from the firm’s account. Upon discovering the fraud, the complainant lodged a police FIR.
Key Facts
- Cheque amount: Rs 60,00,000
- Date of alleged forgery: not specified, but the cheque was honoured before the FIR was filed
- FIR registration: police registered an FIR after the complainant’s report (date not specified)
- Forensic analysis: the disputed signatures were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and later to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh. The CFSL report concluded that the complainant’s signatures matched the disputed ones.
- Trial Court order (29.01.2018): set aside the FIR and ordered its cancellation based on the CFSL report.
- Revisional Court order (01.03.2025): set aside the Trial Court order, directed the Trial Court to treat the protest petition as a complaint and to allow the complainant to lead evidence.
- Petition filed by the accused: challenged the revisional order, alleging jurisdictional excess and questioning the reliance on the CFSL report.
Procedural History
- 29.01.2018: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan set aside the FIR and ordered its cancellation.
- 01.03.2025: Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan (Revisional Court) set aside the Trial Court order and remitted the matter to the Trial Court, directing it to treat the protest petition as a complaint and to permit the complainant to lead evidence.
- Petition by the accused: filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (date of filing not specified, judgment dated 29.07.2026).
- 29.07.2026: High Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the petition.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner (accused): argued that the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction, that the protest petition was based on a superseded FSL report, and that Sections 223-226 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were not satisfied.
- Respondent (State): contended that the Revisional Court correctly directed the Trial Court to treat the protest petition as a complaint and that the accused had no right to be heard before the issuance of summons.
Relief Sought
The accused sought the setting aside of the Revisional Court order dated 01.03.2025 and the restoration of the Trial Court’s order of 29.01.2018 which had cancelled the FIR.
The Legal Issue
Whether a prospective accused has locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation issued under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before cognizance is taken, and whether the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the Trial Court to treat a protest petition as a complaint.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the Revisional Court had no authority to convert a protest petition into a complaint without satisfying the procedural safeguards prescribed in Sections 223-226 of the BNSS. He further maintained that the CFSL report, which formed the basis of the protest petition, was superseded by the earlier FSL report and therefore the complaint was false.
For the Respondent
The State submitted that the Revisional Court merely exercised its power to ensure that the complainant could lead preliminary evidence, as mandated by section 200 CrPC. It emphasized that a prospective accused cannot be heard before the magistrate issues summons, citing Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and other precedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the statutory framework governing the pre-cognizance stage of criminal proceedings. It observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer any right of hearing on a prospective accused before a magistrate issues a direction for investigation under section 156(3). The Court relied on Father Thomas v. State of U.P. (2010 SCC OnLine All 2438) to affirm that “the prospective accused has no right to be heard before the issuance of summons.”
"It is abundantly clear that the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. before cognizance or issuance of process against the accused."
The Court then turned to the evidentiary issue concerning the handwriting expert report. While acknowledging the CFSL report that the signatures matched, the Court reiterated the settled principle that expert opinion is opinion evidence and must be approached with caution. It cited a series of Supreme Court decisions (S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.) to underscore that such evidence is not conclusive and requires independent corroboration. However, the Court clarified that there is no rigid rule mandating corroboration; the requirement is factual and case-specific.
The Court further examined the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court. It held that the Revisional Court was within its powers to direct the Trial Court to treat the protest petition as a complaint because the complainant had a statutory right to file a protest petition under section 190(1)(a) CrPC, and the magistrate was obliged to examine the complainant and witnesses under section 200. The Court found no infirmity in the Revisional Court’s order and therefore concluded that the petition filed by the accused was not maintainable.
The Verdict
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused. The order of the Revisional Court dated 01.03.2025 directing the Trial Court to treat the protest petition as a complaint and to allow the complainant to lead evidence was upheld. No monetary or other relief was granted to the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
No Pre-Cognizance Challenge
- Practitioners must recognize that a prospective accused cannot file a pre-cognizance challenge to a direction for investigation under section 156(3) CrPC.
- Any objection must be raised after the magistrate issues summons and the accused becomes a prospective accused in the true sense.
Handwriting Expert Evidence Must Be Corroborated
- Courts will continue to treat handwriting expert reports as opinion evidence.
- Lawyers should ensure that such reports are supported by independent documentary or testimonial evidence before relying on them for conviction or acquittal.
- Absence of corroboration does not automatically render the expert opinion inadmissible, but it weakens its probative value.
Revisional Courts Can Direct Treatment of Protest Petitions
- A revisional court may direct a trial court to treat a protest petition as a complaint where the statutory requirements of sections 190 and 200 CrPC are satisfied.
- Parties should be prepared to lead preliminary evidence in protest petitions, as the court may order such evidence to be taken before formal cognizance.
Practical Takeaways
- File objections to investigation directions only after summons are issued.
- When relying on forensic reports, accompany them with corroborative material.
- Anticipate that revisional courts may intervene to ensure procedural fairness in protest petitions.
