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:
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.