JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Mittal Trading Company – Appellant
Versus
Munish Kumar Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is seeking quashing of order dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh has declined the request of the petitioner to amend complaint bearing No.1 dated 02.01.2013.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint in terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') read with Section 420 IPC alleging that respondent was working with petitioner as DSE. The respondent with a view to discharge its financial liability issued an account payee cheque No.732966 dated 22.07.2012. The cheque was presented by the petitioner which came to be returned on account of 'insufficient balance'. The petitioner served legal notice upon the respondent which was followed by afore-stated complaint under Section 138 of NI Act read with Section 420 IPC. In the complaint, the date of cheque was mentioned as 22.07.2010 whereas as per the petitioner, the correct date of cheque is 22.07.2012. The petitioner moved an application seeking amendment of the complaint. Learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 13.07.2018 has dismissed the application of the
Ahmedabad vs. Ben Hiraben Manilal (1983) 2 SCC 422 : (1983) 2 SCR 676
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740 : (1966) 1 SCR 709
Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India P Ltd. vs. Sukarsh Azad (2014) 13 SCC 779
P. Mohanraj and others Vs Shah Brothers Ispat Private Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258
The court emphasized the power of the court to alter or add charges, permit re-examination of witnesses, summon additional accused, and allow additional evidence, and highlighted the quasi-criminal n....
Amendments to complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act that change the nature of the complaint are not permissible if they could cause prejudice to the accused.
Strict adherence to statutory conditions for notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act is essential, and curable amendments in the complaint are permissible if they do not alter the case's substanc....
The court affirmed that changes in a complainant company's name do not invalidate pending legal actions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited t....
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act affirmed, emphasizing the necessity of due process in criminal trials and the validity of a Magistrate's authority.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be amended to include the name of the company as an accused, even if the company was not originally named as an accused in t....
The denial of liability and refusal to pay the cheque amounts by the accused constituted a valid cause of action for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, despite being filed before t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.