Typographical errors in criminal complaints can be corrected if they do not influence the case's essence and do not cause prejudice to the accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 9409 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.6181 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :

UDAYAKUMARI KS, AGED 60 YEARS W/O PREMKUMAR , RESIDING AT VILAYIL VADAKE JUNCTION, VILAPPILSALA VILAPPIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN -

695573 BY ADVS.

SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SMT.SHAHINA NOUSHAD SHRI.REUBEN CHARLY SHRI.KRISHNA S. KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTATIVES AND SALESMAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (REPSCO) NO. T.1662, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY ITS STAFF, ARUNKUMAR, S/O DIVAKARAN NAIR, PIN - 673573 PP.SRI.SANAL P. RAJ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

------------------------------------------

CRL.MC NO. 9409 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2025

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CMP No.6181/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -XII, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been filed by the respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , (‘NI Act’, in short).

2. The petitioner states that in Annexure A1 complaint the accused has been shown as one K.S. Udayakumar. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the respondent had filed Annexure A2 application to correct the name of the accused as K.S. Udayakumari instead of K.S. Udayakumar. Although, the petitioner filed Annexure A3 objection, the Trial Court allowed the application and permitted the name of the accused to be corrected as K.S. Udayakumari. Annexure A4 order is patently wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Even though service of notice is completed on the respondent and there is no appearance for them.

4. The petitioner’s principle grievance is that, the amendment of the name from K.S. Udayakumar to K.S. Udayakumari has caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure , (in short ‘Code’)/ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short, ‘ BNSS ’) or in the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘the Act’) to carry out such an amendment. Therefore, Annexure A4 order is unsustainable in law and may be quashed.

5. In Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. [2025 KHC 6640], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that typographical errors which do not change the very nature of the complaint, and is a curable irregularity, can be permitted to be effected, notwithstanding no specific enabling provisions in the Code / BNSS or in the Act.

6. In the case at hand, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that her name is K.S. Udayakumari and that she issued the cheque covered under Annexure A1 complaint. The only grievance is that since the respondent has shown the name of the accused as K.S. Udayakumar, the same should not be permitted to be corrected. This, I find to be unsustainable in law, because it is only a typographical error where in the alphabet ‘i’ has been mistakenly omitted to be printed while preparing the complaint, which does not go to the root of the matter and in no way causes any prejudice to the petitioner, especially since her name is K.S. Udayakumari and she has indisputably issued the cheque.

In view of the principles laid down in the aforecited decision and taking note of the fact that the petitioner herself was the drawer of the cheque, covered under Annexure A1 complaint, I do not find that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Se