Key Points: - Amendments to a complaint can be allowed to correct curable infirmities even though there is no explicit provision, if they do not prejudice the other side and do not alter the nature of the offence; amendment allowed when cognizance has not yet been taken and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (!) (!) (!) - Cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to apply judicial mind to the contents of the complaint and to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath; mere filing or receipt of the complaint does not constitute cognizance; cognizance meaning "taking judicial notice" and proceeding under sections like 204 or 202 may follow (!) (!) (!) (!) - In the case at hand, the Magistrate did not have cognizance on 18.05.2007 but took cognizance later after evaluating the amended complaint on 21.06.2007; amendment prior to cognizance is permissible to avoid prejudice and multiplicity, whereas after cognizance it requires careful scrutiny to prevent prejudice (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court cites that taking cognizance is not merely the filing of a complaint but a judicial mind applied to disclose an offence; addition of paragraphs via amendment does not automatically constitute or undo cognizance; courts must weigh whether amendment prejudices or changes the nature of proceedings (!) (!) (!) - The decision affirms that there is no express bar to amendment of complaints and that curable infirmities may be addressed by formal amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and prejudice, guiding future conduct of similar cases (!) (!)

What is the correct moment when cognizance of an offence is taken under Cr.P.C. in a complaint case?

What is the admissibility and scope of amending a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. prior to or after cognizance?

What are the principles governing curable infirmities and amendments to a complaint to avoid prejudice or multiplicity of proceedings?