Gurpreet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the petitioner seeks invocation of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Needless to say, such power needs to be exercised in a very cautious and circumspect manner and not for the purpose of seeking to assail an order which is interlocutory in nature and, merely, in context of application filed under Section 311A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 349 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

3. Petitioner herein is facing trial for committing offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.

4. During trial, one Dr. Gopal Jha (PW10) entered into witness box. Prosecution examined him in order to prove one prescription given by such doctor. CRL.M.C. 5313/2026 2

5. Such prescription has been proved as Ex. PW10/A.

6. During cross-examination, various questions were put to the aforesaid witness and the final suggestion was to the effect that since he (Dr. Gopal Jha) knew complainant and her father, he had prepared a false prescription on 06.01.2012.

7. After aforesaid cross-examination, the accused-husband moved an application under Section 311A Cr.P.C. seeking direction that aforesaid prescription and admitted handwriting of the complainant or her specimen handwriting to be taken by the Court be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. He apprehends that the handwriting on the aforesaid prescription is rather of the complainant herself.

8. Aforesaid endeavour has, evidently, no relevancy with the fact-in-issue.

9. The core issue is whether the accused treated his wife with cruelty or not and whether her istridhan and other properties were misappropriated or not.

10. The clear-cut endeavour of the petitioner is to, somehow, prolong the trial, on one pretext or the other.

11. Moreover, the invocation of inherent power is only under exceptional circumstances when there is clear-cut perversity and gross jurisdictional error in the impugned order. There is nothing to suggest any serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court, necessitating interference by this Court by invoking its inherent powers. The discretion seems to have been exercised by the learned Trial Court while giving justifiable reasoning. Learned Trial Court though noted that a private handwriting expert had given his opinion based on some photocopy, it also took note of the fact that defence CRL.M.C. 5313/2026 3 has, now, taken a different stand, which is not in synchronization with the suggestion put to the aforesaid witness during cross-examination.

12. Moreover, if advised, the accused can call such private handwriting expert in his defence.

13. Be that as it may, finding no reason, much less a compelling one, present petition is, hereby, dismissed in limine.

14. The pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE JULY 28, 2026/dr/sk