IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2004 Himanshu Chopra …Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another …Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate present for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate present for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the revisionist, Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. The revisionist has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by respondent no. 2 in complaint case no. 1015 of 2003 by which discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by respondent no.3 stating therein that a cheque of `18,064/- given by the revisionist has been dishonored wherein the revisionist has taken a ground before the court below that cheque has been signed not by the revisionist but by his father. Although the complainant stated that it is a firm and therefore, being the partner of that firm the revisionist has also the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. Be that as it may, the revisionist moved a discharge application, which was rejected by the Judicial 2 Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar vide order dated 23.08.2004, as prima facie the court below found sufficient material to proceed against the revisionist. It is this order, which has been challenged by the revisionist. 5. However, as stated before this Court that in fact the application for discharge did not lie before the trial court and the same can only be governed by chapter XIX and therefore there is no provision for moving a discharge application before the trial court. Moreover the revisionist had moved an application for his discharge during trial. Prima facie, no case is made out. As such, order of the trial court cannot be interfered with at this stage. However, revisionist is at liberty to place before the trial court all the defence, which is presently being raised before this Court. 6. The revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 8.12.2011 VKG