Bombay High Court
VISHAL N. BHUPTANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The trial court's order rejecting the applications to send the cheques to a handwriting expert is upheld as lawful.
Summary
The petitioners, Vishal and Vaibhavi Bhuptani, filed several writ petitions challenging the trial court's orders rejecting their applications to send disputed cheques to a handwriting expert for signature verification. They contended that the cheques, given as security for a hand loan, were not signed by them and that inconsistencies in the complaint affidavit warranted expert analysis. The respondents argued that the applications were intended to delay the criminal proceedings and that the accused had not contested the signatures during cross‑examination. The trial court observed that the accused had not denied the signatures, that Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, already empowers the court to compare signatures without an expert, and that the applications were filed to protract the trial. Relying on these observations, the court held the orders rejecting the expert applications were lawful. Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners' application to refer the disputed cheques to a handwriting expert.
- Whether Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides sufficient power to the court to compare signatures without expert assistance.
- Whether the applications were filed merely to delay the criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- handwriting expert
- signature verification
- Section 72
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- High Court of Bombay
- Article 227
- evidence
- cheque dispute
Judgment
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(909) WRIT PETITION NO. 2985 OF 2026
Vishal N. Bhuptani … Petitioner
V/s.
Digitally signed
PRACHI
by PRACHI
PRANESH
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.09.11
21:28:19 +0530
WITH
(910) WRIT PETITION NO. 2989 OF 2026
Vaibhavi N. Bhuptani & Anr. … Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
(911) WRIT PETITION NO. 2990 OF 2026
Vaibhavi Vishal Bhuptani … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
(912) WRIT PETITION NO. 2991 OF 2026
Vaibhavi Vishal Bhuptani … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
(913) WRIT PETITION NO. 2997 OF 2026
Vishal N. Bhuptani … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
Page 1
PPN
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
(914) WRIT PETITION NO. 3038 OF 2026
Vishal N. Bhuptani & Anr. … Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
WITH
(915) WRIT PETITION NO. 3039 OF 2026
Vaibhavi Vishal Bhuptani … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
______________________
Mr. Yash Jain a/w Mr. Santosh Salekar i/by Halai & Co., for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. D.V. Saroj for the Respondent No.2.
______________________
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. By all these writ petitions challenge is to the legality and
validity of orders, by which, applications for sending the cheques
in dispute to handwriting expert for comparing the handwriting
appearing in the body of cheques, were rejected.
2. The impugned orders in all these 7 writ petitions are the
same. The details of the impugned orders are set out in a tabular
form submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the
Page 2
PPN
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
Respondent No.2. The said tabular form is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference :-
CMM
Sr. EXH Date of High Court
Court Parties Details
No. IBIT Order Case Details
Details
4357/ Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/2985/
1 SS/ 71 11/05/2026 Versus
2026
2021 State of Maharashtra
4404/ Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/2989/
2 SS/ 30 15/05/2026 Versus
2026
2021 State of Maharashtra
5715/ Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/2990/
3 SS/ 42 15/05/2026 Versus
2026
2021 State of Maharashtra
1625/ Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/2991/
4 SS/ 77 15/05/2026 Versus
2026
2021 State of Maharashtra
1143/ Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/2997/
5 SS/ 76 15/05/2026 Versus
2026
2021 State of Maharashtra
4356 / Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/3038/
6 SS/20 77 11/05/2026 Versus
2026
21 State of Maharashtra
4405/ Vishal N Bhuptani
WP/3039/
7 SS/ 44 11/05/2026 Versus
2026
2021 State of Maharashtra
3. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners is that the cheques were given as
security when the hand loan was given and the amount was paid
by the Petitioners and the cheques are written not by the
Petitioners, but by somebody else and, therefore, prayer is made to
Page 3
PPN
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
send the cheques in dispute to the handwriting expert.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also submitted
that there is variance in the affidavit which is referred in the
complaint and therefore the cheques are required to be sent to the
handwriting expert.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 2 submitted that in fact this is a case where the
application has been filed to protract the hearing of the criminal
complaint. The applications have been filed at the stage of
arguments. It is further submitted that during cross examination
the Petitioner i.e Accused admitted the signature.
6. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Trial Court has
set out the reasons in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 which reads as
under:
“4. On perusal of the record, it is clear that, the accused
during the cross-examination of the complainant has not
challenged the issuance of Cheque in favour of the complainant
along with the signature. Now, so far as the contention as regard
in difference in the handwriting is concerned, there is no law
which specifically makes it compulsory that the details/
particulars including the signature of the person signing the
Cheque should be in one and the same ink.
5. Secondly, during the cross-examination, it was tried to
suggest that blank signed Cheque was issued and the alleged loan
was given by the brother of the complainant and not by him. As
such, it seems that the present application for sending the Cheque
Page 4
PPN
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
to the handwriting expert has been filed just to protract the
proceeding. Even otherwise, this court is having ample power to
compare the writings appearing on the disputed Cheque by
invoking power under section 72 of the Bharatiya Saksh
Adhiniyan 2023, atleast for the limited purpose as sought by the
accused. So also, assuming for a while, it is opined by the
handwriting expert that there is difference in the hand-writing
this by itself is not sufficient to exonerate the liability of the
person signing the Cheque, because what is important for
attributing liability is the signature of the person who has issued
the Cheque and not anything else. Therefore, regard being had to
the manner in which cross-examination of the complainant has
been conducted, there appears no need to seek the opinion of the
expert by referring the disputed Cheque as sought by the accused.
the application being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected.”
(Emphasis added)
7. Thus the Learned Trial Court has taken into consideration
that Accused i.e. Petitioners during the cross-examination have not
challenged the issuance of cheques in favour of the complainants
as also not denied the signature. During cross-examination it was
tried to be suggested that blank signed cheques were issued and
the alleged loan was given by the brother of the complainant and
not by the Petitioners. The learned Trial Court has also observed
that the Court is having ample power to compare the writings
appearing on the disputed cheques by invoking the powers under
Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The
learned Trial Court has further observed that the application has
been filed to protract the proceedings.
Page 5
PPN
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
8. Section 72 of the BSA to which reference is made by learned
Trial Court is as under:
“72. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others
admitted or proved.—
(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is
that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or
made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the
satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that
person may be compared with the one which is to be proved,
although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or
proved for any other purpose.
(2) The Court may direct any person present in Court to write
any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to
compare the words or figures so written with any words or
figures alleged to have been written by such person.
(3) This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to
finger impressions.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus it is clear that in order to ascertain whether a signature,
writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have
been written or made, the Court is empowered to compare any
signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of
the Court to have been written or made by that person with the
one which is disputed signature, writing or seal and for that
purpose even the power is there with the Court to direct any
person present in Court to write any words or figures for the
purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so
Page 6
PPN
909.WP-2985.26.DOC
written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by
such person.
9. Thus, the impugned order passed is in accordance with law
and does not require any interference in the extraordinary and
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
10. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however
with no order as to cost.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 7
PPN
Checking your session…