[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2230/2006 SMT. NEETA GUPTA Vs. SHRI BAIJNATH SINGHAL Date: 28.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Jai Raj Tantia for the petitioner. **** The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No.5, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 192/2004, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been rejected. The main challenge to the order impugned by the petitioner is on the ground that the trial Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner moved under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, has not considered the fact that the cheque in question belonging to the partnership firm of which the petitioner was the sleeping partner was misplaced and first information report was also registered to this effect and the blank cheque book was bearing signature of the partner of the firm. [2] It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the cheque in question does not bear her handwriting except signature on the cheque as the entire cheque book was signed by her for the use of the firm and the cheque was subsequently filled by the complainant himself. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully gone through the order impugned dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Court below. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court has only to see whether signature of the accused are there or not and it is immaterial that the cheque in question has been filled in different handwriting. Therefore, the application moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act has rightly been rejected by the trial Court observing that the petitioner only wants to delay the proceedings. Having gone through the order impugned dated 10.10.2006, this Court do not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned order requires no interference whatsoever by this Court. [3] Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/