JAI MATA TRADERS Vs. UNIQUE FOUNDARY REGD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner for inserting `proprietor Ashok Kumar in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF was rejected with a further prayer for allowing the petitioner to insert the words proprietor Ashok Kumar in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF in the title of Complaint no.591/2/04 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as M/s Jai Mata Traders vs. Unique Foundry and others filed by the petitioner against the respondents pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

(2.) THE facts, in short are, that the petitioner M/s Jai Mata Traders had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondents No.1 to 4 on account of dishonor of three cheques of Rs.20,000/- each. During the pendency of the above said complaint, the petitioner had moved an application for inserting the word `proprietor Ashok Kumar in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF in the title of the complaint. Due to sheer over sightedness in the head note of the complaint, only Jai Mata Traders and HUF was mentioned, whereas, it should have been mentioned as Jai Mata Traders Proprietor Ashok Kumar HUF. M/s Jai Mata Traders is firm name of Ashok Kumar HUF of which Ashok Kumar is the karta. THE Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated 12.08.2008 dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner by observing that the complainant cannot be allowed to make such an amendment in order to fill up lacuna. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for seeking insertion of words Proprietor Ashok Kumar in between Jai Mata Traders and HUF in the title of the complaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable as there is no provision under law for inserting/substituting the complainant. So, on this score also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that it is not a slip or an oversight. Heard. No provision of law has been pointed out to show wherein the head note of the complaint or the very complainant can be substituted. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Shah & another reported as 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 011 held that there is no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of a complaint petition at a later stage.