ORDER Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioner has come up with the present petition u/S. 482 of CrPC for setting aside the order dated 19/03/2021 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (MP) in Criminal Revision No.331/2019, allowing the revision preferred by respondentcomplainant against the order dated 21/08/2019 passed by the Court of JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.241/2014, by which the Court of JMFC has dismissed the application filed on behalf of respondentcomplainant for sending disputed cheques to the FSL for determination of ''ink'' on the disputed cheques. 2. Factual matrix of the case in short is that the complainant/ respondent has filed a complaint u/S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [ in short '' NI Act''] alleging therein that he and the petitioner were having in friendly acquaintance with each other. According to complainant, he had lent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent and at the time of repayment of the same amount, the petitioner had issued two cheques, dtd. 25/08/2013 and 05/07/2013 respectively of Central Bank of India in his favour. During the encashment of said cheques, it was found that there was variation of three years in regard to writing of petitioner on the said cheques by ''ink''. Therefore, before the Court of JMFC an application was filed by respondent for sending the disputed cheques to the FSLfor determination of ''ink''. Summons was issued to the petitioner and matter was fixed for defence evidence and in defence, the petitioner examined himself and other witnesses as well as filed reply to complaint filed by respondent u/S. 138 of the NI Act. 3. After hearing both the parties, the Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed application filed by respondent vide order dated 21/08/2019. Being aggrieved, respondent, thereafter, filed a revision before Revisional Court and same has been has set aside by Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 19/03/2021 by allowing application filed on behalf of respondent. Hence, this petition. 4. Challenging the impugned order passed by Revisional Court, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has specifically admitted his signature on disputed cheques before the Court of JMFC. If the cheques have been filled by another person, will not cause any illegality by drawing a presumption under Section 20 of NI Act. Hence, this petition. 4. Challenging the impugned order passed by Revisional Court, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has specifically admitted his signature on disputed cheques before the Court of JMFC. If the cheques have been filled by another person, will not cause any illegality by drawing a presumption under Section 20 of NI Act. In the reply to the complaint u/S 138 of the NI Act, petitioner has specifically admitted the factum of signature on disputed cheques but Court of JMFC has raised a presumption u/S. 20 of the NI Act and Revisional Court while passing impugned order has utterly failed to consider that it is not legally required that the disputed cheques should be filled by the person, who has signed the same. It is nowhere prescribed in Section 20 of the NI Act that in case of Negotiable Instruments, entire body of instrument shall be written only by maker or drawer of instrument and once execution is admitted, it shall be assumed that the cheques were issued by accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of liability, even in case where the cheques filled by some other person. It is further submitted that the disputes cheques bear signature of petitioner which reflects from the report given to Police Authorities as well as the application submitted by petitioner to the Bank concerned but Revisional Court has failed to consider this aspect as there is no expert opinion required in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding determination of age of ''ink'' by adopting any scientific method. Hence, it is prayed that present petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported impugned order and submitted that there is no illegality committed by Revisional Court while allowing the revision filed by respondent. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and have gone through relevant provisions of law. 7. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported impugned order and submitted that there is no illegality committed by Revisional Court while allowing the revision filed by respondent. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and have gone through relevant provisions of law. 7. Following are the components of offence punishable u/S. 138 of NI Act:- ''(1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability, (2) presentation of the cheque by the payee or the holder in due course to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount.'' 8. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to mention here provisions under Section 20 of the NI Act, which runs as under:- ''20. Inchoate stamped instruments.-Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as then case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount, provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.'' 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of T. Nagappa Vs. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Murlidhar, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 , while discussing the scope of Section 20 of NI Act, has held that by reason of this provision, a right has been created in the holder of cheques. Prima facie, the holder thereof is authorized to complete the incomplete negotiable instrument. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. & Another Vs. MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. & Another, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234 , held as follows:- "13…the well-settled law that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very stringently and with circumspection. It is settled law that at this stage the Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. At this stage, the Court could not have gone into merits and/or come to a conclusion that there was no existing debt or liability." The Court further held that:- "17. There is therefore no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability was on the respondents. Thus, they have to discharge in the trial. At this stage, merely on the basis of averments in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability." 10. From bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of the NI Act, it is manifest that by reason of provisions under Section 20 of NI Act, a right has been created in the holder of cheques. Prima facie, the holder of cheques thereof is authorized to complete any incomplete instrument. There is no law that a person drawing cheques has to necessarily fill it up in his own handwriting. In the present matter, petitioner-accused has not denied his signatures on the disputed cheques. Once petitioner- accused has admitted his signatures on disputes cheques, then he cannot be escaped from his liability or debt on the ground that same have not been filled in by him. In the present matter, petitioner-accused has not denied his signatures on the disputed cheques. Once petitioner- accused has admitted his signatures on disputes cheques, then he cannot be escaped from his liability or debt on the ground that same have not been filled in by him. The Revisional Court while passing the impugned order has utterly failed to consider this aspect that it is not legally required that the cheques should be filled by the person, who has signed the cheques. There is no intention or knowledge on the part of petitioner that the aforesaid disputed cheques would be encashed. Hence, an error has been committed by Revisional Court while allowing the revision filed by respondent, by allowing the application filed by respondent vide impugned order dated 19/03/2021. Therefore, same deserves to be set aside. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.