ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for quashment of order dated 13.5.2022, passed in Criminal Revision No.96/2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court (Electricity Act, 2003) Court No.9, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh whereby order dated 05.01.2022, passed in SC NIA No..185/2015 (Umesh Sahu v. Shri Bhoopendra Singh Thakur) by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur has been affirmed.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent/complainant filed an application under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “NI Act”) before the learned JMFC, Jabalpur alleging that the complainant had given Rs.6.00 lacs (Rupees Six Lac) in cash to the accused on 5.2.2015. In turn applicant had given a cheque of Rs.6.00 lacs (Rupees Six Lac) to the complainant to be drawn at Punjab National Bank. When respondent/complainant presented the cheque, same was returned dishonored with a note “Account Closed”. Respondent/complainant filed complaint dated 15.12.2018 Annexure A/1. It is further submitted that on 2.12.2021 during the pendency of the complaint respondent/complainant moved an application for amendment in the complaint on the ground that by mistake name of Punjab National Bank has been mentioned in place of HDFC Bank. Therefore, he be permitted to incorporate incorporate “HDFC Bank” in place of “Punjab National Bank”. Copy of the amendment application for amendment is Annexure A/2. Learned JMFC allowed the amendment application despite petitioner/accused objection that amendment would change the nature of the complaint.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that notice was issued by the complainant in the name of Punjab National Bank and same is clearly demonstrated in notice Exhibit P/3. Exhibit P/2 is on the basis of HDFC Bank. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to incorporate the amendment. In his deposition before the trial Court complainant has mentioned that cheque was of Punjab National Bank. The amendment application was filed to meet out the deficiency caused in averments of complaint against the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite all the objections raised by the petitioner/accused learned JMFC allowed the amendment application and criminal revision filed against the order of learned JMFC too has been dismissed by ASJ Court which is against the provisions of law. Hence, the order passed by the Courts below are not only arbitrary but also unjust, unreasonable and beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, it has been prayed that aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below being illegal and bad in the eyes of law be set aside.

4. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a case law of Gokuldas v. Atal Bihari & another, reported in 2017 (2) JLJ 431 = (2017) 4 MPLJ 73 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is undisputed that there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with the amendment of the complainant. At the same time, there is also no bar under the Cr.P.C against permitting a complainant to amend his complaint. Therefore, the question arises whether a complainant desiring to amend or modify the complaint can be permitted to do so? If yes, then till what stage and to what extent the criminal complaint can be amended.

7. In this case, on a perusal of the complaint Annexure A/1, it is revealed that there is no dispute about cheque number and the amount filled therein. The only dispute is about the name of bank because as per para 2 of the complaint cheque was drawn on Punjab National Bank whereas by moving amendment application it was prayed that name of HDFC Bank be incorporated in place of Punjab National Bank. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distilleries, report