C-482 No. 579 of 2010 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate present for the petitioner. Heard. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2009, Karan Singh Yadav Vs. Vinod Sahdev, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, police station Kotwali Gangnahar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned cheque is a forged cheque. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure –6 to the petition, wherein Oriental Bank of Commerce has intimated under Right to Information Act that only six digit series cheques are issued by the bank, and the cheque No. 15006 was not issued by the bank. The trial court vide impugned order dated 07.01.2010, has observed that the petitioner / accused is at liberty to lead the defence evidence to show that the cheque is forged. Whether the cheque is forged or not, is a question of fact, which can be decided by the trial court, after recording the evidence of the parties. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to form any opinion on the incomplete evidence before it. On one hand, Annexure –2 to the petition shows that the Oriental Bank of Commerce has dishonoured the cheque No. 15006 on the ground of insufficient fund, on the other hand the petitioner is referring to the intimation received under Right to Information Act vide letter dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure –6 to the petition). In the above circumstances, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is summarily dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may take the plea before the trial court that the cheque in question is a forged one and he shall be at liberty to lead the evidence in defence, after close of evidence of the complainant. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 24.06.2010 HN