Advocates:
['SHYAM DAYARAM DEWANI', '', 'HARSHAL R BELEKAR', 'ANMOL S GUPTA', '', 'PAVAN JAIN', 'S R SHINDE', 'SUBHASH M KAPSE']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 377/2022

M/s. A. S. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.,

having its registered office at Meghdoot

Heights Plot No. 172, Flat No. 301, 4^th

Floor, SA Road, Shraddhanand Peth,

Nagpur – 440022 through its Director

Shri Surendra Sharma.

... P

ETITIONER

(Original Complainant)

VERSUS

M/s. Sun Plastics, having its

office at 38, Goyal Market,

Siyaganj, Ware House Road,

Indore – 452001 through its

proprietor, Mr. Prakash S/o

Mithulal Goyal

also at,

M/s. Sun Plastics 12 Dumper

Godown Gram Pigdambar,

Indore – 453331.

… RESPONDENT

(Original Accused)

_____________________________________________________________

Mr. S. S. Dewani, Advocate with S. D. Dewani, Advocate for

petitioner.

Mr. Anmol S. Gupta, Advocate h/f Mr. Pawan Jain, Advocate

for respondent.

______________________________________________________________

2

CORAM

: VINAY JOSHI, J.

RESERVED ON

: 10.08.2022

DATE OF JUDGMENT

: 12.08.2022.

JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.

Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3.

A short challenge has been raised to the rejection of the

amendment application by the Trial Court. The petitioner is

complainant in SCC No. 316407/2015 relating to the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

(‘N.I. Act’). The petitioner sought amendment into the cause title of the

complaint. Precisely, the complaint is filed by M/s. A. S. Polymers

Private Ltd. Co. through its Manager Mr. Surendra Sharma. It is the

petitioner’s contention that Mr. Surendra Sharma is a Director and thus,

a typographical error occurred by mentioning him as a “Manager”

instead of “Director”. To that extent, the petitioner sought amendment

in the complaint, however it was rejected.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the proposed amendment was purely a typographical

curable defect and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the

amendment. He would submit that throughout the petitioner came

3

with a case that he is a Director of Private Limited Company. It is

submitted that the petitioner and his son who is another Director, has

examined in the complaint. However, the respondent/accused has not

challenged that petitioner is a Director of the Company. In short, it is

the submission that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if

such amendment has been carried out. The petitioner has also filed

supporting documents in the nature of certificate of incorporation and

a copy of resolution to indicate that he is a Director of said Company.

5.

The other side resisted this application by contending that

at the fag end of the Trial, the amendment cannot be sought. In

support of said contention, reliance is placed on certain decisions.

Moreover, it is contended that the belated amendment would cause

prejudice to the rights of the respondent/accused.

6.

There is no dispute that a complaint is filed by the Private

Limited Company through Mr. Surendra Sharma who has been stated

as a Manager. The petitioner has produced copy of certificate of

incorporation along with copy of resolution showing that he is one of

the Director of the Company. Minutes of the meeting of the Board of

Directors has been produced to support said contention. It reveals that

the petitioner and his son has been examined, however the other side

has not challenged that they are Directors of the Company. The learned

4

counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision

of this Court in case of Dharmadas Bhiva Jadhav Vs. Arun Bhiva Jadhav

and another, 2021(1) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 684, would submit that

amendment in criminal complaint is permissible. He has also relied on

the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu

Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628, whe