SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11938

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
DHANALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SHRI.MATHEW K.T, SHRI.GEORGE K.V
For the Respondents: SHRI.SRINATH C.V, SRI.K.T.SAJU, SMT.GAYATHRI RAJAGOPAL, SHRI.ARUN K, SHRI.ARTHUR B. GEORGE, SMT.NIMISHA M.G, SHRI.PRABHU B.M, SRI.E C BINEESH PP

Judgement Key Points

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 learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top