IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61731-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.11.2025.

SACHIN KUMAR ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS NURDEEN ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT Mr. Aseem Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Seeking quashing of the order dated 19.08.2025 passed in NACT No.196 of 2020 titled as ‘Nurdeen Vs. Sachin Kumar’ by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahabad, vide which the application for correction of clerical/minor mistake in the complaint under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been allowed by substituting the place of presentation of cheque as “Babain” in place of “Pipli”, alleging that the same amounts to a material alteration and would amount to amendment in the original complaint which is not permissible as the correction in the same would go to the very root of the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the instant petition has been filed.

2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the aforesaid complaint bearing NACT No.196 of 2020 titled as ‘Nurdeen Vs. Sachin Kumar’ had been filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahabad. An application was moved by the respondent-complainant for correction in the original complaint regarding the place of presentation of the cheque on the ground that the same had been mentioned as “Pipli” instead of “Babain” due to inadvertence and that the said mistake had also been carried out in the affidavit Ex.CW1/A dated 30.07.2020 tendered in evidence. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Court against which the present petition has been filed.

3 Counsel contends that the Court has committed an error while allowing the said application, as the same was filed after a delay of more than four years and that too when the case was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant, just with the motive of filling up the lacunae in the case. He further contends that the respondent would be restrained from carrying out the above said amendment as the same would be in conflict with the averments contained in the original complaint and would be a material alteration not only in the original complaint but would also go to the root of the issue of territorial jurisdiction as the territorial jurisdiction would change from the Courts at Shahabad to the Courts at Kurukshetra.

4 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.

5 The Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent as due to an inadvertence, the word “Pipli” had been mentioned in place of the word “Babain” and the same was allowed to be corrected. I am of the opinion that the said correction cannot be said to be altering the offence materially and it would not invalidate the institution of the proceedings/complaint. It is not the case that the mandatory procedure of issuance of a notice before initiating the complaint had not been followed. Further, the alteration would not invalidate the fundamental ingredients prescribed for commission of offence and regarding the issuance of a cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, being a holder of cheque in due course; the presentation of the cheque as well as its dishonour and consequent issuance of the notice. The only impact of the said error is on the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the complaint. Invariably, the same is not an illegality as per Section 461 Cr.P.C., and is a curable irregularity. The aggrieved party can file an application for seeking transfer of the complaint to the Illaqa Magistrate having the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The proceedings in such a case would thus not be vitiated on the said score alone. I am of the opinion that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner solely to delay the proceedings without any tangible cause or any irrepara