ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. The petitioner challenges in this revision, the order dated 2.8.2019 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1226 of 2019 in CC No. 326 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, whereby the petition filed by him seeking permission to amend the cause-title of the complaint to correct the name of the accused as "S.G. Ampamma" instead of "S.G. Annapurnamma" was dismissed.

2. Facts of the revision case are rather jejune and may be stated as follows:

The petitioner is the complainant in CC No. 326 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur. He has filed the said complaint against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, who are accused therein, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, "the N.I. Act") on the ground that the cheque that was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable liability was dishonoured. The 1st accused in the said case is Vanisha Traders represented by its Proprietor. The 2nd accused is the proprietor of the said Vamsha Traders. The 2nd accused is shown as representing the 1st accused Vamsha Traders. Her name was shown as "S.G. Annapurnamma" in the cause-title of the complaint.

3. It is the case of the complainant that in fact the correct name of the 2nd accused is "S.G. Ampamma". But, inadvertently by mistake, that her name was typed as "S.G. Annapurnamma" in the cause-title. When notice dated 12.7.2017 was issued to her before filing the complaint, she received the same and acknowledged the receipt of the said notice and she got issued a reply notice dated 17.7.2017, wherein her name is mentioned as "S.G. Ampamma". She has also signed on the cheque as "Ampamma". In the reply notice also she has admitted that she is the proprietor of the 1st accused-Vamsha Traders. However, she pleaded that she has closed that business on 21.7.2014. Now, taking advantage of the said spelling mistake in mentioning the name of the 2nd accused as "S.G. Annapurnamma" that she is trying to wriggle out from her liability in the case. Therefore, the complainant has filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the cause-title in the complaint to correct the name of the 2nd accused, who is also representing the 1st accused, as "S.G. Ampamma".

4. The said petition was opposed by the accused in the said case mainly on the ground that there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the N.I. Act to seek amendment of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. So, the complainant cannot invoke Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which pertains to amend the pleadings in a suit, to amend the complaint in a criminal case. Accepting the said contention of the accused that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. or in the N.I. Act which enables the complainant to amend the complaint in a criminal case and also on the ground that Order VI Rule 17 CPC is applicable only to amend the pleadings, which are plaint and written statement, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition as not maintainable by the impugned order.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the present criminal revision case assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3-accused.

7. The seminal question that arises for determination in this revision case is, whether a petition to amend a complaint filed in a criminal case is maintainable or not in the absence of any provision to that effect in the Cr.P.C. or in the N.I. Act.

8. As already noticed supra while narrating the facts of the case, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against Vamsha Traders represented by its proprietor showing it as 1st accused and against the 2nd accused therein, who is the proprietor o