Typographical errors in a criminal complaint can be amended without altering its substance, ensuring justice is served without technical hindrances.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashment of complaint titled as “Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs. Rayees Ahmad Bhat” (for short the impugned complaint) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Budgam (for short trial court) along with orders dated 12.09.2023 read with order dated 16.04.2024 (for short the impugned orders).

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short the Act of 1881) came to be filed by the complainant respondent herein against the accused petitioner before the trial court on 26.08.2023 in respect of nine cheques aggregately amounting of Rs. 23,80,000/- issued by the accused petitioner herein in favour of the complainant respondent herein purportedly in discharge of a liability whereupon entertaining the same, the trial court after examining the complainant and his witness on oath and considering the case set up in the complaint took cognizance and issued process against the accused petitioner on 12.09.2023.

3. During the pendency of the complaint supra , the complainant respondent herein filed an application on 04.12.2023, seeking correction of typographical errors having crept in the complaint which application after being opposed by the accused petitioner herein came to be allowed by the trial court on 16.04.2024.

4. The petitioner herein thereafter on 07.06.2024 instituted the instant petition calling in question the impugned complaint, proceedings initiated thereon including the order of cognizance dated 12.09.2023 as well as order dated 16.04.2024.

5. The petitioner has urged the following grounds in the petition:-

(a) “ BECAUSE, the impugned complaint is vague, hazy and amorphous and as such, not maintainable in law. The impugned complaint does not specifically put forth the allegations against the petitioner nor does it show any liability of petitioner against the respondent herein. The complaint appears to be more like a demand notice rather than a criminal complaint, therefore same is not sustainable under law and no proceedings can be initiated thereon against the petitioner.

(b) BECAUSE, the court below ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioner herein on the basis of the complaint which does not satisfy the requirements of a criminal complaint, but appears to be a demand notice as aforesaid. Since the trial court has passed the impugned cognizance order in a laid-back manner while being unmindful of the law on the subject, therefore the impugned order of cognizance is unsustainable in law.

(c) BECAUSE, admittedly there is no provision for amendment of a criminal Complaint either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act. On such basis an objection was raised before the trial court as regards maintainability of the application seeking amendment of complaint. The trial court, however, passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 thereby allowing the amendment in compliant without there being any legal support to the said action of the trial court, more-so when the trial Court had already taken cognizance in the matter. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set-aside for being alien to the procedural criminal law.

(d) BECAUSE, the application of the respondent seeking amendment of the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the respondent while preferring the said application had not specified the proposed amendment/s. The law is settled on the point that in case the amendments proposed to be made in any pleadings are not qualified and specified, such amendments cannot be allowed. The trail court has ignored the aforesaid proportion of law by passing the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 mechanically and without application of judicial mind.

(e) BECAUSE, the trail Court by allowing the amendment of the complaint has virtually allowed the respondent/ complainant to fil