The court emphasized the responsibility of the Magistrate to ensure a fair trial without allowing the accused to misuse the process for protracting the trial.

1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 03.09.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2016, Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State of Uttarakhand & another, and order dated 17.02.2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal case No. 4105 of 2015, M/s Mariya Industries vs. Anil Kumar Yadav and further be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court/1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.),/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur to call a report from the handwriting expert of the Government Forensic Lab Dehradun asking it whether the writing over the cheque no. 180405 and deposit form dated 27.10.2014 are same or not and only thereafter pass the final order in criminal case no. 4105 of 2015, M/s Mariya Industries vs. Anil Kumar Yadav.

2. The complainant-respondent filed a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant’s evidence was closed. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The criminal complaint case was fixed for defence evidence. At this stage, an application for comparing the description/particulars made in the cheque with the admitted handwriting of the accused was filed. The signatures of the accused on the cheque were admitted. Said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved with the same, the accused filed a criminal revision which too was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

3. The accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque which was delivered to respondent no.2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the handwriting in the cheque does not belong to him. Learned Trial Court, by a reasoned order, dismissed the prayer for comparing the handwriting on the cheque with the admitted handwriting of the accused by a reasoned and elaborate order. When the criminal revision was preferred by the accused, learned Revisional Court, again by an elaborate and reasoned order, dismissed the criminal revision. This Court need not delineated those reasons which have been given by two courts below for the sake of brevity. The applicant wanted the handwriting on the cheque to be compared with the handwriting on the bank slip.

4. The accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque, while leaving the cheque blank, thereby giving prima facie authority of the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not accepting the amount covered by the stamp. The accused, so signing the cheque shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signs the same, to any holder in due course for such an amount.

5. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:

“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 1[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 the case may be, upon it a negotiable 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.”

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 submitted that this application has been filed for the purpose of protracting the trial. He submitted that the accused had never raised