JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No. 187/2016 preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.2016 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No. 1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Regular Case No. 959/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer for sending the cheque in question for examination to the hand writing expert has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act initiated at the instance of the respondent. The respondent has claimed in the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act that the petitioner took a loan of rupees eight lakhs from him and for the repayment of the said loan, he has given a cheque of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bhilwara to him. It is alleged that when the respondent presented the said cheque for realization in the Bank, the same was returned by the Bank with a remark payment stopped by the drawer. The respondent has thereafter served a notice upon the petitioner, however, despite service of notice, when the petitioner has not repaid the loan, the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner. In response to the notice issued by the trial court, the petitioner had appeared before the trial court in January, 2016 and thereafter on 9.9.2016, has filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act while alleging that the writings as well as the signatures on the disputed cheque was not of him and therefore the same may be sent for examination to the hand writing expert. 4. 4. The prayer of the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the respondent and the trial court after hearing counsel for the parties has rejected the said application while observing that the cheque in question was not dishonoured on the ground of dissimilarities in the signatures or in the writings over the cheque, but the same was dishonoured by the bank while marking the remark payment stopped by the drawer. 5. The trial court has further observed that as per Section 138 of the N.I. Act, an accused has to prove before the court that he has not given the cheque to the complainant for repayment of loan or any liability and the matter is fixed for cross examination of the complainant and the accused will get every opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for sending the cheque in question for examination to the hand writing expert cannot be granted. 6. Being aggrieved with the order of the trial court, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the revisional court and the revisional court while affirming the order of the trial court has observed that till date, the petitioner has not filed any criminal complaint alleging that the signatures on the cheque in question are not of him and from this fact, it is prima facie proved that the petitioner is accepting that he has given the cheque in question to the respondent. The revisional court has also observed that the petitioner has put in appearance before the trial court in January, 2016, however in September, 2016 he has raised the plea that the cheque in question does not contain his signatures and the same is not believable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this Court does not find any illegality in the same, as the cheque in question was not returned by the bank on account of dissimilarity in signatures, but for some other reasons. Hence, the courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders. 8. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above, no case for interference by this Court is made out. 10. Hence, the courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders. 8. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above, no case for interference by this Court is made out. 10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.