Courts may reject belated requests to summon comparison documents after expert evidence has been tested.

The petitioner’s private complaint alleged that the respondent had forged his signature on a diary entry acknowledging receipt of a ₹23.5 lakh loan and had relied on the document to lodge a complaint against him.

In the petitioner’s case, the complainant and defence evidence had closed on 2 August 2024; a forensic expert examined as P.W.2 opined that the petitioner had neither written nor signed the disputed entry, and was cross-examined.

The respondent then applied under Section 94 of the BNSS to summon ten documents bearing the petitioner’s signatures for forensic comparison. The Magistrate allowed the application on 14 July 2026, prompting the petitioner to seek relief under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing the respondent’s Section 94 BNSS application to summon documents for forensic examination after the evidence had closed and the expert had already been examined and cross-examined.

2. Whether the order allowing that application should be set aside in the circumstances of the case.

Section 94 of the BNSS was the basis of the application to summon documents, while Section 528 of the BNSS was invoked in the High Court to challenge the Magistrate’s order.

The Court applied no cited precedent or expressly formulated statutory test; it assessed whether allowing the late application was justified in light of the prior forensic examinations, the expert evidence already on record, and the stage of the proceedings.

The Court noted that the disputed entry and signature had already been subject to forensic examination, that the expert report was admitted as evidence, and that the expert had undergone cross-examination.

Earlier forensic reports had not yielded a definite opinion, but the petitioner had subsequently adduced P.W.2’s evidence, which supported his allegation that he neither wrote nor signed the entry.

Given that the application was filed after the evidence had closed and sought to summon documents again, the Magistrate should have considered those circumstances before granting it. The Court found that the order did not adequately do so and was therefore infirm.

It directed the Trial Court to dispose of C.C. Nos. 13205 of 2014 and 8436 of 2017 within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.