5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no where raised the plea that the signature on the subject cheque is forged, prior to filing of the present application. Even in the cross-examination of PW.1, no suggestion was made to the effect that the disputed cheque is forged and fabricated. On the other hand, the only suggestion made to PW.1 towards the end of the crossexamination is that the accused never issued any cheque towards part payment of the loan amount and that by taking the advantage of the security cheque, the complainant filed a false case. The suggestion is denied by PW.1. Even as per the above suggestion made on behalf of the accused in the cross-examination of PW.1, the plea of the accused is that the cheque issued by way of security was sought to be produced by the complainant as if it was issued in discharge of the loan amount. The signature of the petitioner-accused on the cheque was therefore never disputed and plea of the accused was only to the effect that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Prior to filing of the private complaint, the complainant has issued a legal notice, for which there was admittedly, no reply given by the accused.
