JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (Oral):- Heard. In this revision petition, the accused-petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal of her application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, moved in Complaint No.55-II-07/05, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the cheque was issued under her signatures to one Shri Raj Kumar without entering the bearers name and date along with other similar cheques, depicting the amount, but there was no mention of the name of the bearer, for tendering as security for raising loan from the market, in connection with the running of a partnership business. But the said partnership did not materlize and said Raj Kumar misutilized the said cheques by putting his name and name of some other person including the present complainant on the cheque in question on a later date to validate the cheque and put the cheques for clearance, while the cheques were neither issued in the name of Raj Kumar nor the present respondent. The statutory notice Ex.CW1/D, which is alleged to have been issued by the respondent was also denied along with receipt of the courier. Thus, the petitioner sought the relief that the cheques aforesaid be sent to the handwriting expert for its comparison to determine the writing appearing on the cheques in the column of amount in words and numerical along with signatures and also writing appearing in the column of bearers name, which is in different ink and pen and also to determine its age and also to send the courier slip Ex.CW1/E for determining the fact with respect to the dates, which were in different pen and ink on the rest of the contents of the slip. 2. The learned trial Court sought the reply of the respondent and after hearing the parties, dismissed the application of the petitioner, on the ground that when the signatures are admitted and the writings on the body of the cheques are denied with the contention that it might have been filled up by someone else in that case there is no need for examination by handwriting expert. 3. The learned counsel argued that the impugned order is wrong and illegal, which has caused the miscarriage of justice. 4. 3. The learned counsel argued that the impugned order is wrong and illegal, which has caused the miscarriage of justice. 4. As a matter of fact, the order passed by the learned trial Court is “interlocutory” in nature and revision is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Vishwa Narayan Goswami vs. Ram Rattan Sharma [Cr.M.M.O.No.65 of 2008 decided on 13.3.2009] this court has already taken this view, as such the revision petition merits dismissal. 5. Further otherwise also in the instant case, it is still open to the accused-petitioner to prove the case by preponderance of probabilities, by leading the evidence in defence. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable against the impugned order. 6. However, any observation made herein above and also made by the learned trial court, while deciding the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. shall not effect the merits of case. 7. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application has become infructuous. Cr.M.P.No.55 of 2009.