IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.252 of 2010 Date of decision : December 20, 2010 Ajay Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Krishan Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the respondent. Respondent has taken the plea that the amount in the cheque was filled-in by the complainant-petitioner and simultaneously he filled in the amount in the counter-foil, in the Cheque Book also. According to the accused-respondent, in the counter-foil, amount was filled in as `10,000/-, but in the cheque it has been filled in as `60,000/- surreptitiously. 3. Accused-respondent filed an application, for getting the amount written on the counter-foil compared with the standard writings of the complainant-petitioner. That application has been allowed. Petitioner has challenged the order, which is dated 1st November, 2010. Petitioner- complainant admits that in the cheque amount of `60,000/- Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? …2… has been filled-in by him, but denies that in the counter-foil amount of `10,000/- has also been written by him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts should be concerned only with the amount written in the cheque and not the amount written in the counter-foil. 5. The matter is not as plain and simple as the learned counsel for the petitioner wants the Court to believe. In case in the counter-foil also the amount is written by the complainant-petitioner, then this will be a circumstance, supporting accused’s-respondent’s plea that he owed only an amount of `10,000/- and the amount of cheque can also be supposed to be `10,000/-, but inflated to `60,000/-, surreptitiously. In view of the abovestated position, present petition is dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of, having become infructuous. December 20, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J