‘Plea appears to delay trial’: Court rejects BJP MP’s son petition in stalking case

The order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) Navjot Kaur while hearing an application moved by the accused requesting that documents marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 be sent to CFSL along with the complainant’s admitted signatures recorded during her examination and cross-examination.

The defence counsel of Barala had sought expert analysis to establish their claim that the signatures on the documents were forged.

According to the application, the defence had already examined handwriting expert Dr Jassy Anand as a witness, who, as per the accused, concluded that the signatures on the documents were forged.

The prosecution, however, argued that the expert’s report was based only on photocopies and not original documents. The accused then sought court permission to send originals from the court file to CFSL for verification, offering to bear the expenses.

Opposing the plea, the public prosecutor submitted that the issue of alleged forgery had already been adjudicated earlier by a Chandigarh court. In August 2023, an application filed by Barala under Section 340 of the CrPC seeking action against the complainant regarding the same documents had been dismissed, and that order had not been challenged before any higher court. Hence, the prosecution argued, the matter could not be reopened at this stage.

The prosecution also pointed out that the complainant had already produced original documents before the earlier court, and that the defence expert’s report lacked validity because it was prepared without examining originals. It further contended that the accused had knowledge of the original documents since the beginning of the trial, making the present request unnecessary.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Court noted that the complainant, while appearing as PW-1 (Prosecution Witness), had identified her signatures on both disputed documents. Objections raised earlier by the defence regarding admissibility had already been overruled by the predecessor court, which held that preparation of a document before registration of an FIR alone does not invalidate it.

The court in the order also referred to findings recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2023, observing that the complainant had stated she was scared, trembling and crying after the incident and that her father wrote the complaint at her dictation, which she then signed. In such circumstances, the earlier court observed, it cannot be expected that a person’s signatures would necessarily match standard specimens.

Holding that the defence had already examined its expert witness and that merely because the prosecution questioned that report was not sufficient ground to again seek forensic examination, the JMIC Court concluded that the application appeared to be an attempt to delay proceedings in a case pending since 2017. Accordingly, the plea was dismissed, with the clarification that the order would not affect the merits of the main case.

In a related direction, the court also recorded that an application seeking supply of original or visible photographs submitted by the defence expert had become infructuous because her cross-examination had already been completed. The matter has now been listed for February 26 for remaining defence evidence.

The case was registered on August 4, 2017, under Sections 354-D, 341, 365, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code when the complainant, then a disco jockey (DJ), was allegedly stalked by Vikas and his friend Ashish. She was headed home when she noticed a car following her. The two accused attempted to block her path and tried to enter her vehicle. Sections of kidnapping were added after criticism of police functioning.

The Chandigarh Police filed a 200-page chargesheet in the case on September 20, 2017. A district court framed charges on October 13, 2017, and trial began on October 27, 2017. Ever since, there have been over 100 hearings in the trial court, but repeatedly adjourned on various grounds.

In February last year, the case was transferred to the court of judicial magistrate first class where it is currently being heard.