Criminal courts can permit formal amendments to a complaint to cure curable legal infirmities that do not prejudice the accused or materially alter the nature of the case, ensuring the dispensation of justice.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 09.09.2026, THE COURT ON 16.09.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Crl.M.C No.8993 of 2023 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 16th day of September, 2026

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.956/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly, which is filed against the respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct, 1881.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the disputedcheque issued by the respondent was drawn on the South Indian Bank, Tuticorin Branch, and he had presented the cheque for collection to his bank namely the Syndicate Bank, Angamaly. But, by an inadvertent clerical mistake, the petitioner’s bank is stated in the statutory demand notice and the complaint as South Indian Bank, Angamaly. Actually, from Annexure A4 rejection instrument advice, it can be seen that the cheque was presented and returned by the Syndicate Bank. It was only because Annexure A4 advise was issued by the South Indian Bank, Angamaly Branch, the said bank’s name was typed in the statutory demand notice and complaint, instead of Syndicate Bank. The above mistake was realised only at the time of final hearing. Immediately, the petitioner filed applications to amend the complaint and to recall him, to clarify the above aspect. The applications were opposed by the respondent. However, the Trial Court, by the impugned Annexure A1 common order, dismissed both the applications. The impugned common order is ex-facie erroneous andunsustainable in law. Hence, this petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.Although service of notice is complete on the respondent, there is no appearance for him.

4. Annexure A3 copy of the cheque substantiates that it was drawn on the South Indian Bank, Tuticorin Branch. Annexure A4 advise shows that the disputed cheque was presented for clearing by the petitioner through his bank account in the Syndicate Bank, Angamaly Branch, but the same was returned by the South Indian Bank, Angamaly Branch with an endorsement ’funds insufficient’. Consequently, in Annexure A5 lawyer notice, the petitioner’s counsel had stated that the cheque was presented for collection through the petitioner’s bank account in South Indian Bank, Angamaly Branch, which mistake was repeated in the complaint. It is at the final hearing stage, when the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the above mistake that the petitioner filed two applications to amend the complaint and also to reopen the evidence and re-examine him, which were dismissed by the impugned common order.

5. Unlike the Code of Civil Procedure, there is nospecific provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr. P.C’), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS), or the Act permitting or prohibiting the amendment of a complaint. It is well settled that, even though the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 BNSS is saved only in favour of High Courts; the Criminal Courts of the District Judicature are not denuded of power to do what is necessary for the dispensation of justice in the absence of a specific enabling provision, provided there is no prohibition and no illegality or miscarriage of justice. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent prejudice or miscarriage of justice, what is not prohibited can be taken as permitted. Nevertheless, such inherent power has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously (Read the decisions of this Court in Madhavi v. Thupran [1987 KHC 150] and Aliyar v. Pathu [1988 KHC 475]).

6. The question whether a criminal court has thepower to order the amendment of a complaint is no longer res integra. In S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram [(2015)9 SCC 609], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held