After receipt of the summons in that case, Annexure A3 complaint was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the averments in the complaint, no offence of forgery or anything of that sort of can be discerned. It is pointed out that, according to the first respondent, he had handed over a signed blank cheque to the first accused in CC No.173 of 2008 and it was filled up by the petitioner herein and the second accused in CC No.173 of 2008 and thus forgery was committed. According to the petitioner, the filling up of a signed cheque cannot attract the offence of forgery. Anyway, it is not necessary to probe into that aspect now. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the refer report filed by the police itself will make it clear that the police officer has not applied his mind since the facts mentioned in the refer report are totally against the case averred in the complaint, especially as to the borrowing of money. The learned counsel further submits that as the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded, it has to be presumed that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and also considered the refer report filed by the police.
