[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M)
Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Pronounced on: 16.04.2026
Uploaded on: 18.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
Ravinder Kumar Malik
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Argued by:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Bhisham Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Karan Singh Sura, Advocate
for respondents No.2, 3 and 6.
Mr. Deepender Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate and
Mr. Nipun Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.4 and 5.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for setting aside the order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P-11), whereby two
applications, one under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation and
the other under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. read with Section 73 of the Indian
Evidence Act, in FIR No.545 dated 20.10.2009 registered at Police Station
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -2-
Faridabad Central, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC,
seeking directions to the private respondents to give their specimen
handwriting in the shape of paragraph consisting of all alphabets to prove the
factum of forgery of 114 cheques/vouchers and consequent misappropriation
of government funds, have been dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that he was posted
as Executive Engineer in HUDA Division No. 4, Faridabad, and upon
noticing irregularities, he came across a large-scale fraud, involving
issuance of fake vouchers and forged cheques during the period August-
September 2009, whereby an amount of approximately Rs.1,18,66,441/-
was siphoned off from government funds. It is alleged that the said fraud
was committed in connivance with private accused as well as bank officials
of Union Bank of India, who facilitated encashment of cheques not bearing
the genuine signatures of the complainant. The petitioner claims to have
acted as a whistleblower by getting the FIR registered and initiating
departmental action. It is further averred that during the course of trial,
material evidence surfaced indicating the involvement of certain bank
officials, namely J.P. Aggarwal, M.M. Mehra, I.D. Sharma and Ms. Vinod
Kumari, who had allegedly conspired with the accused persons and cleared
forged cheques in violation of RBI guidelines. It is the specific stand of
the petitioner that despite availability of incriminating material, including
handwriting expert report and documentary evidence, the investigating
agency failed to properly investigate the role of the said officials.
Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation by an independent agency.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -3-
Simultaneously, another application was moved by the petitioner/
complainant under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. read with Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act seeking directions to the accused persons to furnish
their specimen signatures/handwriting in Court for the purpose of
comparison with the admitted signatures of the complainant. It was averred
that upon scrutiny of the challan and the judicial record, the petitioner had
come to know that the accused persons, namely Jagbir Dahiya, Brij
Bhushan, Shyam Singh, R.P. Singla, Raj Kumar Singla, Ranbir and
Karambir Singh, were directly involved in the commission of the offence,
however, the investigating agency failed to obtain their specimen signatures
to establish that the accused had forged the signatures of the complainant,
namely Ravinder Kumar Malik, on cheque books, sanction orders and other
documents. It was further contended that the said forged documents were
used as genuine for committing offences of cheating and forgery and that
the truth could effectively be unearthed only by directing the accused to
give their specimen signatures in English and Hindi, with pen and pencil,
and by sending the same to FSL, Madhuban for expert opinion. It was thus
prayed that such directions be issued in the interest of justice for proper
adjudication of the case.
3. Both the aforesaid applications were opposed by learned
counsel for the accused persons, who contended that the applications were
belated, vague and moved only with an intent to delay the trial. It was
argued that the FIR in question had been registered way back in the year
2009 and the trial had been pending for a considerable period of time, and
no such plea regarding defective or incomplete investigation had been
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -4-
raised earlier. It was further submitted that there were no allegations against
the bank officials in the initial complaint on the basis of which the FIR had
been registered and the present attempt to rope them in was an
afterthought. With regard to the application seeking specimen signatures, it
was contended that the same was misconceived, as no specific details had
been furnished as to which signatures or writings were to be compared and
what inference was sought to be drawn therefrom.
4. Vide the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Faridabad dismissed both the applications. While dealing with the
application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., it was held that although the
Court has the power to direct further investigation, such power is to be
exercised only when there exists sufficient justification. It was observed
that the FIR had been registered on the complaint of the petitioner himself
alleging embezzlement against certain contractors and HUDA officials, and
there was no mention of involvement of bank officials in the original
complaint. Learned Magistrate further noted that one of the proposed
accused had already been examined as a prosecution witness and that the
present attempt to introduce new accused persons at a belated stage
appeared to be an afterthought, which would adversely affect the right of
the accused to a speedy trial. It was also observed that for several years, no
grievance regarding faulty investigation had been raised and, therefore, no
ground was made out for directing further investigation.
5. While dismissing the application under Section 311-A Cr.P.C.
read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act, learned Magistrate held that the
application was vague and lacked necessary particulars. It was observed
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -5-
that the complainant had failed to specify the exact writings or signatures
which were required to be compared and the purpose thereof. The Court
further held that comparison of admitted signatures of the accused with the
standard signatures of the complainant would not yield any meaningful
result and the prayer made was beyond comprehension. Accordingly, both
the applications were dismissed being devoid of merit.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he, while posted
as Executive Engineer in HUDA Division No.4, Faridabad, unearthed a
large-scale scam pertaining to fraudulent withdrawal of government funds
on the basis of forged vouchers, cheques and sanction orders. It is
submitted that 114 vouchers were found to be forged and the signatures of
the petitioner were fabricated, which fact also stands corroborated from the
FSL report. Learned counsel submits that despite such material, the
investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory and deliberately
slow so as to shield the real culprits, particularly the bank officials who
facilitated encashment of forged cheques. It is further contended that the
investigating agency failed to collect crucial documentary evidence and did
not take specimen signatures of the accused persons for proper comparison,
thereby leaving the investigation incomplete. It is argued that the role of
certain accused persons, including bank officials, has not been properly
investigated and the charge-sheet has been filed in a manner to give undue
benefit to the accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner had moved
applications under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation and
under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence
Act for obtaining specimen signatures of the accused persons and sending
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -6-
the same for expert opinion, however, learned trial Court has illegally
dismissed both the applications. It is contended that the impugned order
suffers from patent illegality and has resulted in miscarriage of justice, as
the truth of the matter cannot be unearthed without proper investigation and
scientific comparison of signatures. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting
aside the impugned order and for allowing the aforesaid applications.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/accused have opposed the petition and submit that the present
petition is nothing but an attempt to prolong the trial which has been
pending for a considerable period of time. It is argued that the FIR in
question was registered in the year 2009 and after completion of
investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed and
the trial is at an advanced stage. It is further contended that no grievance
regarding faulty investigation was raised by the petitioner at any earlier
stage and the present applications have been filed after an inordinate delay
of several years. It is submitted that the allegations now sought to be raised
against additional persons, particularly bank officials, do not find mention
in the original complaint and are clearly an afterthought. Learned counsel
further argue that one of the proposed accused has already been examined
as a prosecution witness and permitting further investigation at this stage
would seriously prejudice the rights of the accused and defeat their right to
speedy trial. With regard to the application under Section 311-A Cr.P.C., it
is contended that the same is vague and devoid of particulars, as neither the
specific documents nor the purpose of comparison has been clearly spelt
out. It is thus submitted that both the applications were rightly dismissed by
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -7-
learned trial Court and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is
warranted in the impugned order.
9. It is well settled that though the Court has the power to direct
further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., such power is to be
exercised sparingly and only in cases where it is shown that the investigation
conducted earlier was unfair, tainted or materially defective, leading to
miscarriage of justice. The said power cannot be invoked merely on the basis
of conjectures or to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case.
10. In the present case, the FIR was registered in the year 2009 on
the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner himself. A perusal of the
original complaint would show that the allegations were primarily directed
against certain contractors and officials of the HUDA department and there
was no specific allegation against the bank officials. The investigation was
carried out and culminated in filing of the final report. Significantly, for a
considerable period of time, no grievance regarding the manner of
investigation was raised by the petitioner. The present application seeking
further investigation has been filed after a long lapse of time, when the trial
has already progressed and even prosecution evidence has been partly
recorded.
11. This Court finds merit in the observation of learned trial Court
that the attempt to introduce new accused persons at this belated stage
appears to be an afterthought. Permitting further investigation in such
circumstances would not only derail the ongoing trial but would also
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -8-
seriously prejudice the accused persons who have been facing trial for
several years. The right to speedy trial is a valuable constitutional right, and
the same cannot be defeated by allowing repeated and belated attempts to
reopen the investigation in the absence of any compelling reasons.
12. Moreover, no cogent material has been brought on record to
demonstrate that the investigation conducted earlier was so defective or
unfair so as to necessitate further investigation. The mere allegation that
certain aspects were not investigated in the manner desired by the petitioner
is not sufficient to invoke the power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The law
does not permit roving and fishing inquiries at the instance of a complainant,
particularly when the trial has already reached an advanced stage.
13. Similarly, with regard to the application under Section 311-A
Cr.P.C. read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court finds that
the same is wholly vague and lacks material particulars. The petitioner has
failed to specify as to which particular documents or signatures are required
to be compared and what is the exact purpose sought to be achieved. The
prayer for obtaining specimen signatures of the accused in a general and
omnibus manner, without identifying the disputed documents, cannot be
permitted. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that comparison of
admitted signatures of the accused with the standard signatures of the
complainant would not yield any meaningful or legally relevant result.
14. It is further to be noted that the provisions of Section 311-A
Cr.P.C. are to be invoked where such direction is necessary for the just
decision of the case. In the absence of any clear foundation or necessity
being established, the said provision cannot be used as a tool to embark upon
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.5391 of 2018 (O&M) -9-
a speculative exercise. Allowing such an application at this stage would
again result in delay of the trial without any corresponding benefit to the
cause of justice.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that
learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order after due consideration
of the material on record. No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error has
been pointed out which would warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the present petition
being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
16. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
16.04.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
