The main legal point established is that minor typographical errors in legal documents, such as the date on a cheque, do not invalidate proceedings and can be corrected by the trial court for the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.K. Mour, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent no. 1.

2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside and quashing the C.R. Case No. 1779/2019 pending in the Court of learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The respondent no. 2 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument, Act, 1881 (N.I. Act for short) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M). Vide order dated 19.06.2019, learned trial Court passed an order for adjournment, as the respondent No. 2/complainant filed the petition for adjournment of the case and the next date was fixed on 15.07.2019. Another petition was filed by complainant with prayer for condonation of delay of 16 days. On 17.09.2029, the learned trial Court issued notice to the present petitioner.

4. It is averred that vide order dated 10.09.2021, the delay of 16 days was condoned and the next date was fixed on 06.012.2021 for initial deposition of the complainant but till date i.e. 19.12.2022, no deposition was recorded. The respondent no. 2 was absent on different dates, but on 18.08.2022, the trial court took cognizance of the matter against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and issued summons to the petitioner by fixing the date on 23.11.2022. The petitioner appeared on 23.11.2022 and vakalatnama was filed, but the respondent no. 2 was again absent and the next date was fixed for appearance of the petitioner on 19.01.2023. The petitioner also received the certified copies of the case records on 12.12.2022.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the Proprietor of “B.S. Fashion Tailoring” situated opposite Aayakar Bhawan, G.S. Road, Guwahati. He has approached the respondent no. 2 for financial assistance of Rs. 1,00,000/-and promised to repay the financial assistance with interest @ 6% per month. As both the parties are family friends, the respondent no. 2 agreed to provide financial assistance to the petitioner. On 12.07.2017, the respondent no. 2 gave Rs. 1,00,000/-to the petitioner for an interest @ 6% per month and the petitioner executed one note on 13.07.2017 to repay the financial assistance. When on repeated requests, the petitioner failed to repay the financial assistance, the respondent no. 2 after intimidating the petitioner deposited the cheque No. 195670 dated 04.12.2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/-drawn on the State Bank of India, Christian Basti, G.S. Road. This cheque was issued by the petitioner to repay the financial assistance which was provided by the respondent no. 2. On 27.02.2019, the respondent no. 2 was informed that payment was stopped in favour of the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 then issued a legal notice on 02.03.2019. The petition under Section 138 N.I. Act registered as C.R. Case No. 1779/2019 could not be filed during the period mandated by the N.I. Act because the documents and records of the respondent no. 2 was misplaced in the chamber of the engaged counsel, causing a delay of 16 days in filing the petition.

6. The petitioner is highly aggrieved and dissatisfied on the grounds that he issued the cheque on 04.12.2018, but it is mentioned in the petition of the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 1779/2019 that the cheque was issued on 04.12.2019, instead of 04.12.2018. This fact was ignored by the trial Court. It is averred that the pleading has vitiated the entire proceeding and cognizance was taken against him. The impugned proceedings cannot continue in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this typographical error can be easily rectified and the application was filed by respondent no. 2 for correction of the date from 04.12