The main legal point established in the judgment is the inherent power of the trial court to rectify typographical mistakes in the complaint under section 482 Cr.P.C. to dispense justice between the parties.

S. K. GARG, J. : This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner with that the prayer that the impugned order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara Distt. Rajsamand in criminal case No. 115/2001 by which the application of the complainant-petitioner to amend the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881") was dismissed, be quashed and set aside and the amendment application dated 5.1.2002 filed by the complainant-petitioner be allowed.

2. It arises in the following-circumstances :

3. On 22.2.2001', a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed by the complainant-petitioner against the respondent in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara stating inter alia that a cheque No. 383326 for Rs., 2 lacs was issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, but the said cheque was dishonoured and was returned with the endorsement that the amount in question was not found in the account of the respondent and that information was sent by the Bank to the petitioner on 8.1.2001. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondent and after the expiry of period of that notice, the said complaint was filed by the petitioner.

4. On that complaint, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara took cognizance on 27.3.2001 and thereafter, on 4.10.2001, contents of the offence were read over and explained to the respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. On 5.1.2002, an application was filed by the complainant-petitioner in the said Court stating inter alia that due to inadvertence and typographical mistakes, the cheque number and date of information by the Bank have been wrongly mentioned in paras No. 1 and 2 respectively of the complaint and therefore, it was prayed :

(i) That in para No. 1 of the complaint, instead of cheque No. 383326, the cheque No. 343336 be read; and

(ii) That in para No. 2 of the complaint, instead of date 8.1.2001 the date 9.1.2001 be read.

6. A reply to that application was filed by the respondent on 18.2.2002.

7. The said application of the complainant-petitioner seeking amendment in the complaint was rejected by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara through impugned order dated 9.10.2002 holding inter alia that since inherent power does not exist in the lower court, therefore, such mistakes could have not been rectified by him.

8. Aggrieved from the said order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and gone through the record of the case.

10. Before proceeding further, it may be clarified first whether the mistakes as pointed out by the complainant-petitioner in the complaint were typographical mistakes or not and for that Ex.P/1, which is a cheque may be referred to where the cheque number has been clearly mentioned as 343336 and in Ex.P/2, which is a letter which was issued by the Bank to the petitioner- complainant, the date has been clearly mentioned as 9.1.2001, while in the complaint filed by the complainant-petitioner, the cheque number and date have been shown as 383326 and 8.1.2001 respectively. In this view of the matter, the mistakes can be said to be typographical mistakes.

11. So far as the power of this Court is concerned, this Court has ample power to allow the amendment application in that direction under section 482 Cr.P.C. From this point of view, this petition deserves to be allowed.

12. Before parting with this order, a question arises whether such type of mistakes can be rectified by the subordinate courts or not.

13. It is an established proposition of law that court of justice must poss