Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1072 (MP)

Tantulal Ahirwar v. Krishna Agro Sales

2014-08-27

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. With the consent of both the parties, the final arguments were heard at the motion stage. 2. Petitioner/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Private Complaint No. 1694 of 2010 whereby, the application filed by the respondent/complainant for making correction in the private complaint has been allowed. 3. The facts stated in brief are that respondent/complainant was having a shop named as Shrikrishna Agro Sales in Vidisha. The petitioner used to visit the said shop. On 7th December, 2009, he came to the shop and purchased some goods worth Rs. 50,000/- on credit and thereafter he gave a cheque bearing No. 0494063 of Union Bank Branch Vidisha on 20.1.2010 for payment of Rs. 30,000/-. When, the cheque was presented before the bank, it was returned by the bank on the ground that the account has already been closed. Hence, the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Negotiable Instrument Act mentioning Cheque No. 049063. The respondent filed his affidavit and documents in support of the complaint whereupon cognizance was taken under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner/accused. After recording the particulars of the offence the trial was commenced. At that stage an application for amendment in the complaint as well as notice and affidavit was filed by the respondent/complainant stating that inadvertently cheque number 049063 has been written in the aforesaid documents instead of the correct number of the cheque i.e. 0494063. The said application was allowed vide order dated 4.7.12. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order has submitted that it was a criminal case wherein no provision has been made in the Cr.P.C. for amendment in the complaint, affidavit and notice because of this the application filed by the respondent ought not to have been allowed by the trial court. Learned counsel further pleads that the mistake regarding the cheque number was not only in the complaint but also in the notice which was given by the respondent to the petitioner/accused for demand of cheque money and in the affidavit which was filed by the respondent in support of the contents of complaint, the same cheque number 09463 was mentioned. The said mistake cannot be corrected in the criminal proceedings. The said mistake cannot be corrected in the criminal proceedings. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submissions placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Gorelal and others vs. Rahul Punjabi, 2010 (1) MPWN 62 has submitted that necessary correction can be permitted where the mistake is bonafide. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that cheque No. 049063 instead of correct No. 0494063 has been mentioned in the notice which was issued by the respondent/complainant under section 138 of N.I. Act for demand of unpaid cheque money. The cheque number initially mentioned was wrong in the notice which was based for filing the complaint under section 138 of the Act, the said mistake cannot be corrected by the way of amendment. Moreover, in the affidavit as well as criminal complaint the same wrong cheque number has been stated. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to amend the criminal complaint. In the judgment of the case of Lekhraj Singh Kushwah vs. Brahmanand Tiwari, 2013(5) MPHT 184, this court after considering the earlier view has held that amendment in the complaint, notice as well as in the affidavit filed by the respondent cannot be permitted. This case is squarely covered by the said judgment. Considering the said view, this court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law. Therefore, allowing the petition, the impugned order of the trial court is hereby set aside.