JUDGMENT 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. 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. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the revisional court and the revisional court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 08.11.2011 and affirmed the order dated 17.06.2010. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the orders passed by both the courts below are illegal, improper and contrary to law and the facts. He has further contended that the signatures of the respondent No. 2 on the cheques are not in dispute and as the respondent No. 2 had not repaid the loan amount, he had presented the cheque No. 8594225 in the bank and when the same was not honoured, a complaint under section 138 of the NI Act was filed by the petitioner, on which, the cognizance was taken by the trial court against the respondent No. 2. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner is not maintainable at all. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court took the cognizance against the petitioner for the alleged offences solely on the basis of report of a handwriting expert, which is not the report in the eye of law and the learned trial court erred in placing reliance on the said report, while taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner. 6. 6. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had filed the complaint against the petitioner only because the case instituted by the petitioner against him under section 138 of the NI Act is pending before the competent criminal court and the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 is nothing but a counter to the said proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the orders dated 17.06.2010 and 08.11.2011 passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the orders passed by the revisional court as well as the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned trial court and has contended that prima facie it is proved that there is some interpolation on the cheque given by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and in such circumstances, the learned courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 9. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the reports submitted by the handwriting expert and also recorded his statement. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that before the institution of the complaint by the petitioner in January, 2006, the respondent No. 2 had already served a legal notice upon the petitioner for returning his aforesaid cheques given against the loan amount. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration that the police, though had concluded that no offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC have been committed by the petitioner but had found that the respondent No. 2 had withdrawn Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.09.2005, the date on which he had repaid the part of the loan amount to the petitioner. The action of the learned trial court of placing reliance on the handwriting expert report and the statement of the handwriting expert cannot be said to be illegal in any manner as for the purpose of forming prima facie opinion, the court can take aid of the reports of handwriting expert, though obtained by the person aggrieved. 10. The action of the learned trial court of placing reliance on the handwriting expert report and the statement of the handwriting expert cannot be said to be illegal in any manner as for the purpose of forming prima facie opinion, the court can take aid of the reports of handwriting expert, though obtained by the person aggrieved. 10. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any material irregularity has been committed by the learned trial court in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The learned revisional court has also taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and after relying on several decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court and the other High Courts has rightly concluded that there is no illegality in the order dated 17.06.2010 passed by the learned trial court, while taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders impugned. There is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.The record of the trial court as well as the revisional court be sent forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******