LAWS(P&H)-2018-2-15

RAKESH BANSAL Vs. NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA

Decided On February 23, 2018
RAKESH BANSAL Appellant
V/S
NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A cheque was issued by the accused- respondent in discharge of his legal liability which was dishonoured and, therefore, the complaint was filed. During the pendency of the complaint, at the time of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it came to the notice of the petitioner that the cheque number had been wrongly mentioned in the complaint. Actually, the cheque number was '173543' whereas in the complaint the number mentioned was '173540'. Thus, an application for amendment of the complaint was filed which has been rejected vide the impugned order.

(2.) At the very outset, it may be noticed that the impugned order had been passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The said order could have been challenged by way of revision petition, if maintainable, before the District Judge. However, a revision had been filed directly before the High Court and in my view the same is not maintainable. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral request that the petition may be treated as one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This request is accepted and the petition is being decided by treating it as a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque placed on record is numbered as '173543' and the return memo of the bank also mentions the same number. However, a typographical mistake had been made while filing the complaint. The error in the complaint is neither willful nor on account of any negligence and the accused-respondent could not be prejudiced in any manner as only one cheque had been issued by him and he is aware of the fact that the cheque which had been dishonoured bears the number '173543'. It is further submitted that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application by placing reliance upon Chhabra Fabrics Private Limited vs. Bhagwan Dass Proprietor of Dhingra Handicrafts, 2014(4) RCR(Criminal) 814.