JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - Challenge in this petition, by the petitioner, is to impugned order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-4) whereby the Magistrate has dismissed his application and refused to send the cheque in question to the Government Laboratory for the purpose of ascertaining the age of its ink and other particulars. 2. The conspectus of the facts relevant for disposal of instant petition and emanated from the record is that Fouz Kumar son of Bhag Singh (complainant-respondent) filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’), inter-alia, pleading that Cheque dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- issued by the petitioner in discharge of his existing liability was dishonoured and he is liable to be punished under Section 138 of the Act. 3. During the course of the trial, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-3) in which it was claimed that the complainant has filed a frivolous complaint claiming that cheque in question was issued on 16.3.2009 but infact the petitioner had borrowed a financial assistance of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant about 10-12 years ago and at that time, he had handed over one blank signed cheque as a security of the said loan. The Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide impugned order, Annexure P-4. 4. Petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-4) invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that complainant filed the complaint with regard to dishonour of cheque dated 16.3.2009 for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, purported to have been issued by the petitioner-accused in discharge of his existing liability. On the contrary, the petitioner-accused claimed that he issued the cheque as a security of loan for an amount of Rs.30,000/- taken by him from the complainant about 10-12 years ago. Therefore, to me, comparison of the disputed cheque and other particulars by the Government Laboratory is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties. On the contrary, the petitioner-accused claimed that he issued the cheque as a security of loan for an amount of Rs.30,000/- taken by him from the complainant about 10-12 years ago. Therefore, to me, comparison of the disputed cheque and other particulars by the Government Laboratory is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties. The Trial Court appears to have committed an illegality and material irregularity in declining the prayer of the petitioner, particularly when no prejudice in any manner is going to be caused to the complainant in this respect. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the petition is accepted and Impugned order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to send the disputed cheque for comparison to Government Laboratory, which is essential for just decision of the case, at the cost of the petitioner-accused. ---------------