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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL

ON THE 26th OF JULY, 2022

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35101 of 2022

Between:-

BHUPENDRA SINGH THAKUR, S/O SHRI

MADAN SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 36

YEARS,

R/O THAKUR

KA

BADA,

GANGANAGAR, TRIPURI CHOWK, GARHA

POLICE

STATION,

GARHA

JABALPUR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

AND

UMESH SAHU, S/O SHRI UMASHANKAR

SAHU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O 1092,

GUPTA NAGAR, GARHA POLICE STATION

GARHA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT

(NONE)

This application coming on for admission this day, th e court

passed the following:

Advocates:
Ajay Kumar Shukla,

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for

quashment of order dated 13.05.2022, passed in Criminal Revision

No.96/2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,

Special Court (Electricity Act, 2003) Court No.9, Jabalpur, Madhya

Pradesh whereby order dated 05.01.2022, passed in SC NIA

No..185/2015 (Umesh Sahu Vs. Shri Bhoopendra Singh Thakur) by

1

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur has been affirmed.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

respondent/complainant filed an application under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act") before

the learned JMFC, Jabalpur alleging that the complainant had given

Rs.6.00 lacs (Rupees Six Lac) in cash to the accused on 05.02.2015. In

turn applicant had given a cheque of Rs.6.00 lac (Rupees Six Lac) to the

complainant to be drawn at Punjab National Bank. When

respondent/complainant presented the cheque, same was returned

dishonored with a note "Account Closed". Respondent/complainant filed

complaint dated 15.12.2018 Annexure A/1. It is further submitted that on

02.12.2021 during the pendency of the complaint respondent/complainant

moved an application for amendment in the complaint on the ground that

by mistake name of Punjab National Bank has been mentioned in place of

HDFC Bank. Therefore, he be permitted to incorporate incorporate

"HDFC Bank" in place of "Punjab National Bank". Copy of the

amendment application for amendment is Annexure A/2. Learned JMFC

allowed the amendment application despite petitioner/accused objection

that amendment would change the nature of the complaint.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that notice was

issued by the complainant in the name of Punjab National Bank and same

is clearly demonstrated in notice Exhibit P/3. Exhibit P/2 is on the basis of

HDFC Bank. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that

there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to incorporate the

2

amendment. In his deposition before the trial Court complainant has

mentioned that cheque was of Punjab National Bank. The amendment

application was filed to meet out the deficiency caused in averments of

complaint against the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite

all the objections raised by the petitioner/accused learned JMFC allowed

the amendment application and criminal revision filed against the order of

learned JMFC too has been dismissed by ASJ Court which is against the

provisions of law. Hence, the order passed by the Courts below are not

only arbitrary but also unjust, unreasonable and beyond its jurisdiction.

Therefore, it has been prayed that aforesaid orders passed by the Courts

below being illegal and bad in the eyes of law be set aside.

4. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on a case law of Gokuldas Vs. Atal Bihari & Another,

reported in (2017) 4 MPLJ 73 passed by a coordinate bench of this

Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is undisputed that there is no specific provision in the Code of

Criminal Procedure dealing with the amendment of the complainant. At the

same time, there is also no bar under the Cr.P.C against permitting a

complainant to amend his complaint. Therefore, the question arises

whether a complainant desiring to amend or modify the complaint can be

permitted to do so? If yes, then till what stage and to what extent the

criminal complaint can be amended.

7. In this case, on a perusal of the complaint Annexure A/1, it is

revealed that there is no dispute about cheque number and the amount

3

filled therein. The only dispute is about the name of bank because as per

para 2 of the complaint cheque was drawn on Punjab National Bank

whereas by moving amendment application it was prayed that name of

HDFC Bank be incorporated in place of Punjab National Bank. In U.P.

Pollution Control Board Vs. Modi Distilleries, reported in (1987) 3

SCC 684 the name of the accused compan

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 Back to top