ORDER : 1. This Crl. M.C. is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash Annexure A5 order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Thaliparamba on 22.02.2022 in C.M.P. No. 853/22 in STC No. 1075 of 2017. 2. C.M.P. No. 853/22 was an application filed seeking to amend the cause title of the complaint by adding ‘Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Represented by’ before the name of the complainant. In the application the respondent has filed counter statement stating that the amendment if allowed would cause serious prejudice to him. After hearing both sides, the court below has passed an order dismissing the application stating that the amendment if allowed and carried out, would change the character and nature of the complaint and it would cause great prejudice to the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint is filed under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. seeking to launch a prosecution against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’). The copy of the complaint is produced as Annexure A1. The address of the complainant shown in the complaint is as follows: “T.M. Mathachan, Managing Director, M/s. Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (Manufacturer of R.C.C. Supun Pipes), Kuttukkan Complex, N.H. Thaliparamba, Kannur District.” 4. In the application filed seeking amendment, the words ‘Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Represented by’ is sought to be incorporated prior to the name of the complainant T.M. Mathachan. The complaint was filed by the complainant as the Managing Director of a firm by name Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. According to the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 853/22, the disputed cheque was issued in favour of Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. The complaint was filed by the petitioner as Managing Director of Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. but in the cause title of the complaint the complainant has omitted to state that the petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director was representing Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, in order to avoid a technical argument that Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. was not arrayed as complainant in the above case that amendment of the cause title was sought by adding ‘Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Represented by’ before the name of the complainant, T.M. Mathachan. According to the petitioner, the proposed amendment will not change the nature and characteristics of the complaint and will not cause any prejudice to the accused. 5. In the counter statement filed the respondent has opposed the application vehemently stating that the amendment if permitted would change the character of the complaint and would cause prejudice to him. Therefore, it appears from the averments in the petition that the attempt of the complainant was to change the cause title by adding the name of the company prior to the name of the complainant so as to appear that the complaint was filed by the company represented by the present complainant, who is its Managing Director. So if the amendment sought is not permitted, the complaint would stand as if it was filed by the Managing Director. With the amendment the company would be the complainant and it will be represented by the present complainant. 6. Copy of the cheque in question is produced alongwith this petition. It is found therefrom that the payee is Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed by Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director. Copy of the complaint filed to launch the prosecution is also produced alongwith as Annexure A1. In the second paragraph of the complaint it is stated that the complainant is the Managing Director of a company by name Thuluvananickal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. which is a company manufacturing and selling different pipes and allied materials. Pipes have been purchased by the accused from the complainant’s factory and towards payment of the price that the cheque was issued by the accused in the name of the company. Therefore, it is evident that the cheque was issued to discharge a liability towards company. The company being the payee in the cheque, the amendment sought is very essential for determination of the issue in the complaint on hand. The amendment if granted, would only help the court to arrive at a just decision in the case and would not cause prejudice to the accused. The court below has erroneously taken a view that the amendment if permitted and carried out would change the very nature of the complaint and would result in prejudice being caused to the accused. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is only to be set aside. 7. In the result, the Crl. The court below has erroneously taken a view that the amendment if permitted and carried out would change the very nature of the complaint and would result in prejudice being caused to the accused. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is only to be set aside. 7. In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed and the impugned order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba on 22.02.2022 in C.M.P. No. 853/22 in STC No. 1075 of 2017 is set aside. The court below shall allow the application and permit the petitioner to amend the complaint accordingly.