ORDER :

Madan Gopal Vyas, J.

The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tara Nagar, District Churu in Cr. Case No.284/2016, whereby the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent-complainant for amendment in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner alleging dishonour of cheque no.516876 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur dated 25.5.2016 for a consideration of Rs. 6, 00, 000/- due to insufficiency of funds. In para no.4 of the complaint, the respondent mentioned the cheque number as 516876. After cross-examination and after statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the respondent filed an application before the learned trial court for amendment in the complaint. It was stated that in para no.4 of the complaint the cheque no.516876 has wrongly been mentioned in place of cheque no.516786. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 18.8.2018 allowed the said application thereby allowing amendment of the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while preferring the complaint, the respondent-complainant specifically stated the cheque number and account number and thereafter, the same has been mentioned in his affidavit filed for evidence. It is further submitted that during cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the cheque number and account number mentioned in the para no.4 of the complaint is true and correct. It is thus submitted that after recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the respondent cannot be permitted to seek amendment in the complaint. The learned trial court has committed grave illegality in permitting the complainant to amend his complaint. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Lekhraj Singh Kushwah v. Brahmanand Tiwari : 2014 (3) DCR 778.

(ii) VK Gupta v. Manjit Kaur : 2009(1) DCR 769.

(iii) Jai Mata Traders v. Unique Foundary Regd. : 2011 (2) DCR 3

(iv) Madan v. Ashok Sonaji Hembade : 2014 (2) DCR 711

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there was an inadvertent/typographical error and the learned trial court rightly allowed the application vide the impugned order. It is further submitted that by permitting the respondent to amend the complaint to the extent of amending the number of cheque, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Prem Bhushan Soni v. Achar Kumar : 2009 (1) Civil LJ 181.

(ii) Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh : 2007(1) Cri LR Raj 268.

(iii) Dalpat Singh Sankhala v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: 2013 (4) Cri LR Raj 1911.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order.

6. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh (supra), while dealing with similar issue has held as under:

"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 respec