Mr. Nirmaljit Kaur, J.: - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner for inserting ‘proprietor Ashok Kumar’ in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF was rejected with a further prayer for allowing the petitioner to insert the words proprietor Ashok Kumar in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF in the title of Complaint No.591/2/04 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as “M/s Jai Mata Traders vs. Unique Foundry and others” filed by the petitioner against the respondents pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

2. The facts, in short are, that the petitioner M/s Jai Mata Traders had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondents No.1 to 4 on account of dishonor of three cheques of Rs.20,000/- each. During the pendency of the above said complaint, the petitioner had moved an application for inserting the word ‘proprietor Ashok Kumar’ in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF in the title of the complaint. Due to sheer over sightedness in the head note of the complaint, only Jai Mata Traders and HUF was mentioned, whereas, it should have been mentioned as Jai Mata Traders Proprietor Ashok Kumar HUF. M/s Jai Mata Traders is firm name of Ashok Kumar HUF of which Ashok Kumar is the karta. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated 12.08.2008 dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner by observing that the complainant cannot be allowed to make such an amendment in order to fill up lacuna. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for seeking insertion of words “Proprietor Ashok Kumar” in between “Jai Mata Traders and HUF” in the title of the complaint.

3. As per the contention raised in the petition, only the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to allow correction in the complaint and to allow the amendment and that all the office records of the petitioner, such as income-tax and sales tax, the returns have been filed by HUF known as Ashok Kumar HUF through its Karta Ashok Kumar doing business under the trade name Jai Mata Traders. Further, it does not change the nature of the complaint. The same is only a clerical mistake and the amendment sought is essential.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable as there is no provision under law for inserting/substituting the complainant. So, on this score also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that it is not a slip or an oversight. Heard.

5. No provision of law has been pointed out to show wherein the head note of the complaint or the very complainant can be substituted.

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Shah & another reported as 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 011 held that there is no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of a complaint petition at a later stage.

6. This Court in the case of V.K. Gupta vs. Manjit Kaur reported as 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 139, while refusing to grant the amendment sought with respect to the date of presentation of cheque with the Bank as well as memo of dishonor of cheque by the Banker of the accused held that the complaint was defective and that was not a mere technical defect as the same goes to the root of the matter which cannot be allowed to be amended and while doing so, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Kumar Industries, Kapurthala vs. Sohan Lal reported as 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 78, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under :-

“ 50. Therefore, we find that not only the complaint is defective, but also there is total nonapplication of mind by the learned Magistrate also. This is not a mere technical defect