PRATIPAL SINGH KADAKOTI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were three consecutive Complaint Cases, which were registered against the opposite party to the C482 Application, being (i) Complaint Case No. 1093 of 2020, (ii) Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2020 and (iii) Complaint Case No. 1094 of 2020. The subjet of concern herein would be, as to whether the name of the opposite party, as mentioned in the complaint case, which is extracted hereunder, could in a proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, be permitted to be amended by changing the name of the opposite party from "Prithvi Pal Singh Kadakoti" to "Partipal Singh Kadakoti", i.e. by the actual name. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(UTN)10_2022_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted, that once on the institution of the proceedings of the complaint case on 7/12/2020, was with a description of opposite party, as Prithvi Pal Singh Kadakoti, and particularly once the cognizance of the same has been taken by the Court. In that eventuality, after the cognizance order dtd. 7/1/2021, no amendment, as such, could be permitted to be carried in the description of the opposite party to the proceedings under a complaint cases under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) This Court called upon the learned counsel for the applicant to show, as to under, which procedural law of the Negotiable Instruments Act or that of the Code of Criminal Procedure, creates any such bar in carrying out the formal amendment in the description of the parties, having no bearing on merits of the case particularly in the light of the provisions contained under Chapter 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the complaints to the Magistrates. Sec. 200 of the of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-