JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties at the admission stage.

3. In this criminal writ petition, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application filed by the respondent/original complainant against the order of rejection of his application for amendment of the complaint and allowed the amendment application. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, by his order dated 19th October, 2016, was pleased to reject the application at Exh.182 made by the respondent/original complainant for amendment of the complaint.

4. The facts relevant for deciding this petition are as follows:

Petitioner No.2 is the original accused. Petitioner No.1-Partnership Firm is the newly added accused No.1. Respondent is the complainant. In this judgment, parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The complainant and accused initially were the partners of M/s. Srushti Developers. The complainant and his family members retired from the said Partnership Firm. The said Firm was reconstituted by executing a deed of retirement and reconstitution of the Firm dated 31st March, 1994. The accused with his other family members continued to be the partners of the reconstituted Firm. It is stated that as per the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the complainant and the accused, the accused had to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the Partnership’s account. The accused (partner), after reconstitution of the Firm, issued a cheque to the complainant bearing No.73748 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on the account of the Partnership Firm maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur. On presentation of the cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque. The complainant on 15th September, 1996 issued a notice to the accused (partner) of the Firm. The notice was not issued to the Partnership Firm. The accused (partner) replied the said notice. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused (partner). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act” for short) against the accused (partner) and issued the process.

5. The complainant made an application at Exh.182 in a complaint filed in the year 1996 for addition of the Partnership Firm as an accused No.1 with a consequential amendment. It is stated in the application for amendment that on the date of the filing of the complaint, as per the prevailing law, the Partnership Firm was not necessary party as accused. The legal position has now been changed. It is, therefore, stated that in order to bring the complaint in consonance with the existing law, the amendment was necessary.

6. The accused (partner) opposed the application. According to him, the application was not maintainable. The Partnership Firm was a necessary party as a principal accused at the stage of taking cognizance. The amendment to add the Partnership Firm at this stage is not permissible. The application for amendment was made after 19 years of filing of the complaint.

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur rejected the said application. The complainant challenged the said order by filing a revision application in the Sessions Court, Nagpur. The learned Additional and Sessions Judge allowed the said revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and allowed the application for amendment. The accused being aggrieved by this order is before this Court.

8. I have heard Mr. Lalit Sagdeo, learned advocate for the petitioners/accused and Mr. P.S. Sadavarte, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant. Perused th