HAWA SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 18/8/2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tara Nagar, District Churu in Cr. Case No.284/2016, whereby the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondentcomplainant for amendment in the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner alleging dishonour of cheque no.516876 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur dtd. 25/5/2016 for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000.00 due to insufficiency of funds. In para no.4 of the complaint, the respondent mentioned the cheque number as 516876. After cross-examination and after statement of the petitioner recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., the respondent filed an application before the learned trial court for amendment in the complaint. It was stated that in para no.4 of the complaint the cheque no.516876 has wrongly been mentioned in place of cheque no.516786. The learned trial court vide impugned order dtd. 18/8/2018 allowed the said application thereby allowing amendment of the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while preferring the complaint, the respondent-complainant specifically stated the cheque number and account number and thereafter, the same has been mentioned in his affidavit filed for evidence. It is further submitted that during cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the cheque number and account number mentioned in the para no.4 of the complaint is true and correct. It is thus submitted that after recording of the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., the respondent cannot be permitted to seek amendment in the complaint. The learned trial court has committed grave illegality in permitting the complainant to amend his complaint. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: