INDERJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No.27/2011 (160/2011), whereby the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 17.06.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No.68/2010, whereby the learned trial court took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the trial court, while alleging that he took a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the petitioner and as security, he gave two cheques bearing Nos. 8594225 and 8594226 to the petitioner; in cheque No.8594255, he filled the amount of Rs. 75,000/-, however, the another cheque No. 8594226 was given blank bearing signature of the respondent. Thereafter, he repaid the loan amount to the petitioner by giving Rs. 1,00,000/- on one occasion along with interest of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 40,000/- on another occasion in presence of two persons. It is alleged that when he demanded the aforesaid cheques from the petitioner, he did not return the same. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had given a legal notice to the petitioner through his counsel on 31.10.2005, which was received by him on 02.11.2005, but despite that, the cheques have not been returned by the petitioner. On 21.01.2006, the petitioner had presented the cheque No.8594225 of Rs. 75,000/- by adding '1' before Rs. 75000/' and when the cheque was not honoured, he filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the NI Act' hereinafter) against the respondent No.2, on which the competent court took the cognizance. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had tampered with the cheque by adding '1' before Rs. 75000/', though the loan amount received by the respondent No.2 had already been paid to the petitioner but he did not return the said cheques.

(3.) On receiving the aforesaid complaint, the trial court recorded the statement of respondent - Tara Chand and sent it to the Police Station, Matilirathan under section 202 Cr.P.C. After receiving the report from the police station, the statements of Handwriting Expert AW.7 Anil Gupta were recorded and after taking into consideration the same, the learned trial court, vide order dated 17.06.2010, took the cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and summoned him through bailable warrant.