Court can't ask complainant to give specimen signatures: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, March 17

In a significant ruling liable to change the way specimen signatures are ordered to be furnished, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a complainant or a victim in a criminal case cannot be asked by the court to hand over the same. Justice Sureshwar Thakur also made it clear that even an accused cannot be asked to give his signatures, if enlarged on anticipatory bail.

The direction by Justice Thakur came in a cheating and forgery case registered in December 2019 at the Mani Majra police station under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. Appearing before Justice Thakur on the behalf of the accused, counsel Saurabh Arora submitted that the allegations in the FIR were regarding preparation of false documents at the instance of the accused.

Justice Thakur further made it clear that a UT Judicial Magistrate First Class, hearing the matter, was required not to entertain an application by the investigating officer for taking the specimen and admitted signatures of the accused for comparison with the admitted and specimen signatures of the complainant.

Justice Thakur added that the magistrate was empowered to direct the investigating officer concerned to hold independent investigations into the FIR. “Nonetheless, the magistrate concerned has made affirmative directions upon the investigating officer’s application, as preferred before him, for purpose”.

Justice Thakur observed that the accused, in compliance with the order, did purvey his specimen and admitted handwriting before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. But the direction regarding the complainants-victims remained uncomplied with.

Referring to the legal provisions, Justice Thakur asserted that Section 311-A of the CrPC dealt with the power of a magistrate to order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. Its perusal made it clear that the provision empowered the judicial magistrate concerned to pass the order not only with regard to the accused, but also “with respect to any person, inasmuch as any person other than the accused, or at first glance even qua the victim-complainant”.

Justice Thakur added that the direction to the complainants-victims at first glance fell within the ambit of the statutory phrase “any person” existing in the substantive portion of the provision. But the “deepest reading” of the mandate, especially the coinage “any person other than the accused person”, may not include the victim or the complainant.

Elaborating, Justice Thakur made it clear that a proviso appended to Section 311A of the Code said an order under it would not be made unless the person had at some point of time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.

Justice Thakur ruled that the proviso completely barred the judicial magistrate concerned to pass an order regarding the complainants-victims, and even upon the accused as he was admitted to anticipatory bail.