JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur in revision affirming the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Case No. 06/2008 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners accused for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 2 complainant Shri Harbhajan Singh submitted a complaint in the court of learned ACJM, Sri Karanpur alleging inter alia that he was having an Adhat with the petitioner's firm named 'Barar Traders'. The complainant, by way of the Adhat transactions, allegedly used to draw cash from firm and also sold his agricultural products through the firm in lieu thereof. The accounts of the parties were settled in the month of January, 2007 and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- became due against the complainant who allegedly gave a cheque No. 67677 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to Angrej Singh for squaring off the amount. The complainant alleged that the accused petitioners, interpolated the cheque by forging and inserted the numeral 1' before the numerals 15000'. Thereby, the cheque amount was fraudulently changed from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,15,000/- and the same was presented in the bank and was got dishonoured. The petitioners gave a notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act to the complainant mentioned therein regarding the cheque amount was Rs. 1,15,000/- whereupon, the complainant came to know of this entire fraud and forgery. The complaint so submitted by Harbhajan Singh was forwarded to the Police Station Sri Karanpur for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 1973 where, an FIR No. 212/2007 was registered for the offences under Section 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and investigation commenced. The investigating officer, conducted thorough investigation and submitted a negative final report finding the case of the first informant to be false and also requested the court to proceed against Harbhajan Singh under Section 182/211 IPC. The investigating officer, conducted thorough investigation and submitted a negative final report finding the case of the first informant to be false and also requested the court to proceed against Harbhajan Singh under Section 182/211 IPC. The complainant, submitted a protest petition against the negative final report and got recorded statements of his own and of two witnesses Gurpreet Singh and Kewal Singh under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 1973 where after, the trial court passed the order dated 19.09.2017 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the said order by filing a revision which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur on 15.07.2016. Being aggrieved of these two orders, the accused petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 3. Shri Sandhu, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the orders under challenge are perse bad in the eye of law and should be quashed and set aside. He urged that it is an admitted case of the complainant that he was having an Adhat account with the petitioner's firm through which, he used to trade his agricultural produce. He urged that the dues of the complainant towards the firm accumulated to a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- and to clear the same off, the complainant voluntarily and under his own signatures and writing gave the disputed cheque for the said amount to the accused Angrej Singh who presented it in his bank for collection. The cheque was dishonoured on ground of insufficiency of funds where after, a notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act was issued to the complainant and his prosecution was initiated in the court concerned for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. He urged that the said prosecution has reached to the final stage and the statement of the accused is to be recorded. Shri Sandhu contended that the complainant wrote the amount on the cheque in numerals i.e. Rs. 1,15,000/- as well as the words in his own handwriting and gave the same to the accused. As some error occurred while filling the cheque where the amount was written in words, the complainant himself ratified the mistake by appending his signatures thereupon. Shri Sandhu contended that the complainant wrote the amount on the cheque in numerals i.e. Rs. 1,15,000/- as well as the words in his own handwriting and gave the same to the accused. As some error occurred while filling the cheque where the amount was written in words, the complainant himself ratified the mistake by appending his signatures thereupon. He contended that this act of the complainant in appending his signatures on the disputed cheque over the words between which the mistake occurred makes it amply clear that knowingly, consciously and with full understanding of the implications, Harbhajan Singh gave the disputed cheque to the accused Angrej Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. Later on, he developed a fraudulent intention and launched a totally false and fabricated prosecution against the petitioners which was found so by the police after thorough investigation. With these submissions, Shri Sandhu craved acceptance of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 and implored the Court to quash the impugned orders as being grossly illegal and amounting to an abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, Shri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel representing the complainant respondent urged that the disputed cheque was sent to FSL for comparison from where, a report has been received that there is difference in the handwriting where the amount is mentioned on the cheque in words and figures. He thus urged that manifestly, interpolation was made by the accused before presently the cheque, this Court should not interfere in the well reasoned impugned orders while exercising its inherent powers. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The most significant feature of the case as is apparent from a bare perusal of the dispute cheque, the certified copy whereof was placed on record by Shri Sandhu, is that above the words on the cheque, the complainant himself appended his signatures. It is a common knowledge that slip of pen occurs while filling a cheque and in order to prevent duplicity and avoid the trouble of issuing a fresh cheque, the payer puts his/her signatures above the cutting/alteration in the cheque and thereafter, the bank accepts the cheque as a valid negotiable instrument. The situation of the case at hand is exactly the one described above. The situation of the case at hand is exactly the one described above. The respondent complainant Harbhajan Singh (payer), while issuing the cheque, clearly appended his signatures above the amount filled in words as. The reason for appending his signatures above the amount filled in words is also apparent because in between the words and some alphabet was written incorrectly which was then scored of. The payer appears to have made a slip of pen while writing the amount on the cheque in words and thus, he was compelled to make a correction/rectification and signed the same above the rectification in order to validate the cheque as a valid negotiable instrument. The bank did not dishonour the cheque on the ground that the rectification/alteration amounts to a mutilation. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that the accused petitioner Angrej Singh did not make any alteration in the amount mentioned on the disputed cheque and was perfectly justified in presenting the some for encashment. The learned Magistrate, drew much water out of the fact that the FSL report pertaining to the cheque in question indicated that there is an unusual presence of a character in black ink between the, however, it may be mentioned that the FSL report also mentions that the ink used to write the words does not show any difference whatsoever. Manifestly, the only interference which can be drawn from this opinion of the Handwriting expert is that the were written by the same person (i.e. the payer) in the same flow by the same person. The scribe i.e. the payer (complainant Harbhajan Singh) made a slip of pen in between these words and thus appended his signatures to ratify the cutting and validated the cheque. Hence, the trial court as well as the revisional court were totally unjustified in holding that the accused petitioner Angrej Singh made an interpolation in the cheque and misused the same. Furthermore, allowing the instant prosecution for the nonexistent forgery in the disputed cheque would definitely prejudice the decision of the complaint filed by the accused petitioner Angrej Singh against the complainant for the dishonour of the very same cheque much prior to the initiation of these proceedings. 7. Furthermore, allowing the instant prosecution for the nonexistent forgery in the disputed cheque would definitely prejudice the decision of the complaint filed by the accused petitioner Angrej Singh against the complainant for the dishonour of the very same cheque much prior to the initiation of these proceedings. 7. Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned orders and the proposed prosecution of the accused petitioners for the above offences is totally unjustified and nothing short of a sheer abuse of process of court and hence, cannot be allowed to continue. 8. Consequently, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur and the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Sri Karanpur and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the accused petitioners are hereby quashed. Stay application is disposed of.