Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
DHANALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 842 OF 2025
The petitioner challenged an order dated 11.2025 allowing amendment to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.487/2020. (!) [1][2][3][4] The petitioner argued the amendment would alter the complaint's nature and lacked specific provision under CrPC.[3][5] The respondent contended it involved only clerical corrections.[legal document summary] The Court held that criminal courts may permit formal amendments to complaints that do not introduce new pleadings, change the complaint's nature, or prejudice the accused.[4][6][7][8] No prejudice was found, so the petition was dismissed.[8] (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court addresses the suitability of amending complaints under specified legal frameworks. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the proposed amendment's nature and whether it would alter the original complaint. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court finds proposed amendments to be formal, emphasizing no substantial prejudice to the accused. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated
12.11.2025 in CMP No.8390/2024 in C.C.No.487/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Ottapalam. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.487/2020. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881. He also filed an application seeking amendment of the pleadings. By way of the proposed amendment, the complainant seeks to change the sequence of transactions referred to in the complaint.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner resisted the application contending that by way of amendment, the nature of complaint would ultimately be altered.
4. The learned Magistrate allowed the application. The learned Magistrate has taken note of the fact that no new pleadings are sought to be added by way of the proposed amendment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the application is not sustainable.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. ( 2025 KHC OnLine 6640 ), Hafsa Rahman T. v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2017 (3) KHC 49 ) and Maya v. State of Kerala ( 2025 KHC 2251 ) and contended that typographical or clerical mistakes in the complaint can be allowed to be corrected.
7. In the present case, on a perusal of the application seeking amendment, no additional pleadings are sought to be incorporated by way of the amendment. In Bansal Milk Chilling Centre (supra), the Supreme Court held that Criminal Courts have power to allow amendments to complaints even post cognizance, if the amendment relates to easily curable legal infirmities and causes no prejudice to the accused. In Hafsa Rahman T. (supra) this Court held that, if the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the complaint or where the complainant does not seek to incorporate new pleadings, such corrections or amendments can be allowed. This Court in Maya (supra) reiterated the principles in Hafsa Rahman T. (supra).
8. It is trite that, if the amendment of the complaint is only formal in nature and not substantial, it can be allowed. There is nothing to show that any serious prejudice could be caused to the petitioner/accused by way of the proposed amendment. The impugned order, therefore, requires no interference.
The Original Petition stand dismissed.
Sd/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
