Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.-
Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 against the petitioner which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1St Class, Panchkula and the petitioner is facing trial in the said complaint.
2. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court seeking permission of the Court for taking photographs of the cheque and specimen handwriting of the complainant and for permission to engage an expert and get a report regarding the cheque to prove that the cheque was misused by the complainant.
3. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 4.1.2012.
4. Revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 25.1.2012.
5. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this petition for quashing filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. From the facts, it is not disputed that the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. However, he has taken the plea that the disputed cheque was not filled up by him and the same has been fabricated by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has taken the defence that he had issued blank cheque in favour of one Sunil Kumar and had given this cheque to the complainant for handing over the same to Sunil Kumar but the same has been misused.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken a stand that the cheque was meant for one Sunil Kumar and the same has been misused by the respondent-complainant. However, when the complainant has stepped into the witness box, he was not confronted as per the defence taken by the petitioner, as argued, before the revisional Court as well as before this Court. It was never put to the complainant that the cheque in question was meant for Sunil Kumar and he has misused the same. The revisional court has also noticed that the case is fixed for evidence of the petitioner since May 2011 and after availing five adjournments, the instant application was moved. Even there was no suggestion to the complainant that the name and cheque had been filled up by him. On the other hand, the signatures on the cheque have been admitted by the petitioner. It is well settled that even if the amount, date, and other particulars are filled up by some other person with different ink accused) cannot escape his liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if he has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question.
8. Thus, no case is made out for quashing of the impugned orders.
9. Dismissed.
10. Appeal dismissed.
