Amendments to complaints are permissible if they are formal and do not alter the nature or cause prejudice to the accused.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.121/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Karunagappally (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has been filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’).

2. After the cross examination of the 2^nd respondent (PW1), he filed Annexure A petition seeking to correct two mistakes in the complaint i.e., the name ‘Vavvakkavu’ in place of ‘Oachira’ and ‘account payee cheque’ in the place of ‘bearer cheque’. The said application was opposed by the petitioner through Annexure B objection. Accepting the objection, the Trial Court dismissed the application by Annexure C order. Assailing Annexure C order, the 2^nd respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.11/2020 before the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kollam (‘Revisional Court’, in short), who by Annexure D order, set aside Annexure C order and allowed Annexure A application. Annexure D order is ex-facie erroneous and wrong. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this Court in Kuttan vs. Varanamalyam Kuries (P) Ltd. and Another [2020 (1) KHC 551] to substantiate his contention that only a formal mistake can be corrected by a criminal court, as there is no substantial provision in Code of Criminal Procedure to amend the complaint, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel, if the correction changes the very nature and character of the complaint, the same cannot be allowed. By Annexure D order, the Revisional Court has permitted a substantial amendment of the complaint, which is impermissible in law.

5. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that it is the settled law that there cannot be a second revision through a Crl.M.C. Moreover, the corrections that have been made are only typographical errors, which does not go to the roots of the matter. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner because of the correction. Furthermore, as the petitioner does not dispute the execution of the cheque in question, all the above matters are irrelevant. There is no error in Annexure D order.

6. This Court inKuttan’s case (supra), after by relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukumar S.R v. S.Sunaad Reghuram [2015 KHC 4424] and the decisions of this Court in Linda John Abraham v. Business India Group Company and others [2011 (4) KHC 587] and Hafsa Rahman v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KHC 49] has culled out the principles to permit the amendment of a complaint. It is succinctly held that, if the amendment of the complaint is only formal in nature and not substantial, it can be allowed. Nevertheless, if the amendment of the complaint causes serious prejudice to the accused and changes the nature and character of the complaint, the amendment has to be rejected.

7. In the case at hand, indisputably, the petitioner does not dispute the fact the execution and issuance of the cheque in question. The cheque clearly reveals that it is a bearer cheque and was drawn on the Oachira branch. However, in the complaint, it has been written as an account payee cheque and drawn on the Vavvakkavu branch. This is obviously only a typographical error. The said error does not go to the roots of the matter and does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner because she does not dispute the execution of cheque, which is germane to the dispute at hand.

In the afore said background, I am of the fi