IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 6740 OF 2025 THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2025 IN ST NO.165 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA PETITIONER:

HARIDASAN K.M.

AGED 64 YEARS S/O.KUNHIKRISHNA KURUP, RESIDING AT KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PALERI P.O.,KUTTIADY (VIA), KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673508 BY ADVS.

SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.N.V.SANDHYA SHRI.MAHADEV M.J.

RESPONDENTS:

1 JIJI THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT KALLORA HOUSE, CHANGAROTH AMSOM,AAVADUKKA DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673528

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH MURALI, PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC.CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.08.2025, THE COURT ON PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

V.G.ARUN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl.M.C.No.6740 of 2025 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2025

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.165 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for business purposes and issued a cheque towards discharge of that liability. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and in spite of issuing notice demanding payment of the borrowed amount, the petitioner did not respond, thereby committing the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The number of the cheque issued by the petitioner was mistakenly entered as '667456'

instead of '667457' in the complaint and the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. On realising the mistake, the 1^st respondent filed an application for amendment with a prayer for correcting the cheque number. Although petitioner filed objection to the application, the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer for amendment. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment changes the nature of the complaint and hence should not have been allowed at the belated stage, more so in view of the same number being stated in the proof affidavit.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the correct number of the cheque is stated in the lawyer notice and is reflected in the cheque as well as the cheque return memo. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was correct in holding that the mistake is only a clerical error and the amendment will not cause any serious prejudice to the accused.

4. The law on the point is laid down by the Supreme Court through various decisions including Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1509] wherein amendment was allowed even after the Chief examination of the complainant had concluded. In the case under consideration, the trial has not commenced and the amendment is sought only to correct an obvious typographical error. Being so, the impugned order warrants no interference.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

sj

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 6740 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE S.T.NO.165/2017 BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, PERAMBRA DATED

31/1/2017.

Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.1392/2025 IN S.T.NO.165/2017 BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, PERAMBRA DATED NIL.

Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/5/2025 IN C.M.P.NO.1392/2025 IN S.T.NO.165/2017 BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, PERAMBRA.