ABDUL LATIF HAZARI Vs. KAMASUNNESA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Bankura, the wife-opposite party moved an application for amendment of her application so far that relates to the date when she was driven out from her matrimonial home. The court below allowed the said application on contest. Now, the petitioner challenged the said order in this criminal revision.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, one in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Siddiqui alias Babar v. State of U.P. & Ors, 2009 3 AllCriR 3346 and another in the case of Bishambhar Dass v. Smt. Anguri & Anr, 1978 AWC 25and submitted that since Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for amendment, therefore, the order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently resisted this application and he relied on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Joyanta Shit v. Smt. Lakshmi Shit, 1997 1 RCR(Cri) 497, where our High Court held in connection with an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amendment is legally permissible. He also relied on at least seven decisions of different High Courts in support of his contention. The same are as follows:-(1) Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale v. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale,1984 CalLJ 1257, (2) Smt. Sneha Lata & Anr. v. Ajay Kumar Khanna & Anr, 1999 4 RCR(Cri) 517, (3) Sainulabdheen v. Shansudin & Anr, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 348, (4) Sabita Sahoo v. Khirod Kumar Sahoo, 1990 2 DMC 435, (5) Eshaan Ansari v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 2 DMC 751 and (6) Chinnappaiyan v. Chinnathayee, 2010 2 MadLJ(Cri) 695