Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 72 (RAJ)

Union of India v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd.

2015-01-08

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By the Court : By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 28th May, 2012 whereby application moved by the petitioner - Union of India for correction of clerical mistake in the complaint was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed to seek correction of typographical and clerical mistake in the complaint. It was declined on the ground that no provisions exist to allow correction in the complaint, though it was basically, the typographical error. 3. A reference of judgment of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh reported in (2004) 1 WLC 526 has been given. Therein, the Court allowed correction in the complaint, if it is of typographical nature. Another judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Chinnappaiyam v. Chinnathayee in Crl. R.C. No. 780/2006 and M.P. No. 1 of 2006 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Therein also, similar prayer was allowed by the High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while quashing the impugned order, the clerical mistake may be allowed to be corrected so that the complaint can be pursued effectively. It is further stated that if a correction is of the nature, which changes, substance of the complaint, it may be denied while permitting the correction of the clerical nature, which may be of the dates, number or of such nature. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that application seeking correction is basically to change the entire complaint itself. A reference of Para No. 12 of the application, where prayer is made to delete Para No. 18 of the complaint was made with changes the nature of complaint. Therein, name of two Directors were given and now the petitioner Union of India wants to delete their names. Similar corrections have been prayed in almost all the paras of the complaint. It was thus rightly declined by the Court below in absence of provisions in Cr.P.C to allow correction in the complaint, hence, while maintaining the impugned order, the petition preferred by the Union of India be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 7. It was thus rightly declined by the Court below in absence of provisions in Cr.P.C to allow correction in the complaint, hence, while maintaining the impugned order, the petition preferred by the Union of India be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 7. The perusal of application at Annex.3 reveals that various corrections have been sought in the complaint and in few paras, it is in regard to the dates and number and such minor corrections, which may be of the words used and is to be substituted by similar words to make it correct. At the same time, correction has been sought of the nature, which is substantially changing the complaint itself. In my opinion, correction in the typographical and clerical mistakes in the complaint can be permitted by the Court for the ends of justice. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgment in the case of Bhim Singh (supra) apart from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Chinnappaiyam (supra). Therein, referring the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that typographical or clerical mistakes can be allowed to be corrected in the complaint. It is for the ends of justice and as it is not so prohibited by Cr.P.C. 8. In view of above, I am of the opinion that so far as the corrections of clerical and typographical nature and of such similar mistakes, in Para Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 to 16 in the application at Annexure-3 are concerned, is should have been permitted looking to its nature but at the same time, correction in few other paras with changes either the nature or substance of the complaint, cannot be permitted. Accordingly, while accepting the application for correction in the complaint, as indicated in the Para Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 to 16 of application at Annexure - 3, the other correction in Para Nos. 9 and 12 are not accepted, as they are not found to be of clerical and typographical mistake. 9. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the application moved by the petitioner Union of India is allowed to the extent, indicated above. The corrections as permitted, may be made by the complainant leaving other corrections, which are not permitted. 10. 9 and 12 are not accepted, as they are not found to be of clerical and typographical mistake. 9. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the application moved by the petitioner Union of India is allowed to the extent, indicated above. The corrections as permitted, may be made by the complainant leaving other corrections, which are not permitted. 10. With the aforesaid, this criminal misc. petition is allowed in part.Petition partly allowed. *******