Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI, SMT.N.V.SANDHYA, SMT.DHANUJA M.S
For the Respondents: SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP, ADV SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER

The petitioner, complainant in S.T.No.268/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 1st respondent, filed a complaint alleging that a cheque for Rs.7,00,000/- issued by her in discharge of a legally enforceable debt was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, despite statutory notice. (!) (!) (!) (!) During cross-examination of DW1 (drawee bank Assistant Manager), it emerged that the cheque belonged to the 1st respondent's husband, prompting the petitioner to seek his impleadment as an additional accused and consequential amendment of the complaint, which the trial court rejected as substantial and prejudicial. (!) (!) Heard arguments from counsel for petitioner, 1st respondent, and Public Prosecutor. (!)

Criminal courts may permit amendments to complaints only for formal, curable infirmities that cause no prejudice, unlike civil proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure; substantial amendments altering the complaint's nature or causing prejudice to the accused must be rejected. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Here, impleading the husband at the trial's fag-end—without prior allegation of his involvement or statutory notice to him—constitutes a substantial change altering the complaint's fabric and causing severe prejudice, justifying rejection. (!) (!) Crl.M.C. dismissed, finding no error in trial court's order under Section 528 BNSS, without prejudice to petitioner's other remedies. (!)