Prospective Accused Has No Locus Standi to Challenge Proceedings Prior to the Issuance of Process

The complainant, a partner in a healthcare firm, alleged that the petitioners forged his signature on a cheque for ₹60,00,000

An initial police investigation led to a cancellation report after the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) concluded the signatures matched the complainant's

Despite a protest petition and further investigation, the Trial Court accepted the cancellation report

On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the Trial Court's order, directing that the protest petition be treated as a complaint and that the complainant be allowed to lead evidence

The petitioners challenged this revisional order before the High Court

1. Whether a prospective accused has the locus standi to challenge proceedings at the pre-cognizance stage or during the recording of preliminary evidence

2. Whether the Trial Court was required to treat a protest petition as a complaint following the submission of a police cancellation report

3. Whether a handwriting expert's report constitutes conclusive proof sufficient to dismiss a criminal allegation without further inquiry

The court applied the principle that a prospective accused has no right to be heard or to intervene before the issuance of summons, relying on Father Thomas v. State of U.P. regarding the lack of locus standi at the pre-cognizance stage

It applied Section 45 of the Evidence Act and precedents such as S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. and Padum Kumar v. State of U.P., which establish that expert handwriting opinions are "weak" evidence requiring independent corroboration and are not conclusive proof

The court applied the procedural mandate from Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, requiring a Magistrate to treat a protest petition as a complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS) if a police report is contested

The High Court reasoned that the petition was premature because the accused has no legal standing to participate in proceedings until a summons is issued

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the CFSL report definitively proved the absence of forgery, noting that judicial precedents strictly categorize expert testimony as opinion evidence rather than substantive evidence; therefore, a conviction or dismissal cannot rest solely on such a report without weighing it against other evidence

The court observed that when an informant files a protest petition against a cancellation report, the Magistrate is legally bound to examine the complainant and witnesses rather than summarily accepting the police's findings

The Court affirmed that the Trial Court must treat the protest petition as a formal complaint and proceed with the examination of evidence

The records were ordered to be returned to the lower courts to continue the proceedings as directed