Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 2.3.2013 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2012 (Rajeev Das Gupta v. Smt. Lajwanti) whereby the lower revisional Court has allowed the revision and set-aside the order passed by the trial Court in which a correction application had been allowed by the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

3. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by the complainant (petitioner) against the respondent No. 2 before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate, after affording opportunity to lead the evidence and hearing the complainant, summoned the respondent No. 2 to face the trial. During pendency of the trial, an application was moved on behalf of the complainant with the averments that he had filed two complaints including the present one on the same day and inadvertently due to typing mistake, the same cheque numbers have been mentioned in this matter as has been mentioned in the other complaint. Therefore, prayer was made to allow the application to correct the mistake to mention the actual number of the cheques.

4. Objection was invited and after hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the application observing that the complainant has filed cheque No. 695346, 695345 and 695344 on record, but in the complaint, he has mentioned the cheque No. 333948 and 333939. It has also been mentioned that complainant has filed another complaint No. 3115 of 2010, which is pending in which the chqeue No. 333948 and 333939 have been filed. Thus, it was observed that there is a typing mistake, therefore, to decide the complaint on merit, amendment is necessary. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, opposite party No. 2 filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad being Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2012 (Rajeev Das Gupta v. Smt. Lajwanti). The Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 2.3.2013 allowed the criminal revision setting aside the order passed by the trial Court observing that there is no any provision in the Cr.P.C. to amend the evidence.

5. I have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are of quasi-civil nature and amendment application moved before the trial Court was not an amendment application in strict sense, but it was simply a correction application. The cheques, which have been filed on record, were sought to be mentioned in the complaint. Complainant had filed two complaints on the same day and due to typing mistake, same number got typed in both the complaints, thus, correction needed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the law laid down in the matter of Janki Vashdeo Bojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. have argued that observation recorded by the revisional Court is in accordance with law. No amendment is permissible in the criminal matter. It was also argued that affidavit in support of the complaint cannot be amended, therefore, if complaint is amended, the summoning order would become unsustainable. Thus, prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

9. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for both the parties.

10. It is true that there is no any specific provision regarding amendment in the criminal matters except to the provisions under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which are as follows :

“Section 362. Court not to after judgement.—Save as otherwise provided by this Co