KANWAR LAL Vs. NATIONAL SEEDS PROCESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 CrPC, the petitioner complainant has approached this court for challenging the order dtd. 28/2/2017 passed by learned ACJM, Phalodi in connection with Complaint No.1616/2016 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner to allow him to make correction in the cause title of the complaint to be specific in the name of the respondent-accused. The petitioner filed the complaint in question under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act while arraigning Ghanshyam, Partner, National Seeds Process as accused for the offence. It was alleged that the total amount due to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner towards their business transactions was running into nearly about Rs.70.00 lacs of which, the accused paid up a sum of Rs.45.00 lacs to the complainant. For the remaining amount, the disputed cheque was given to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.26,35,000.00, which upon being presented, was dishonoured. The petitioner gave a notice to the respondent in the name of Ghanshyam, Partner, National Seed Process, Rajkot. Admittedly, no response was offered by the respondent to the said notice.

(2.) Thereupon, the petitioner complainant filed the complaint in question in the Court of ACJM, Phalodi for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act arraying the firm as a party respondent through its partner Ghanshyam. The petitioner claims that during pendency of the complaint, he realized that the actual and complete name of the respondent is Kishore @ Ghanshyam and that he is commonly called as Ghanshyam. Accordingly, he moved an application seeking correction in the cause title of the complaint, which was dismissed by the trial court by the order dtd. 28/2/2017, which is assailed in the instant miscellaneous petition.

(3.) Mr. Ballani, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Bhim Singh Vs. Kan Singh [], Maan Agro Centre Vs. Eid Parry (India) Ltd. And Anr. [] and Azizoddin Vs. Pandit Dindayal Nagari Sahakari Patpedi Ltd. [] and urges that the above error which occurred on part of the complainant petitioner while filing the complaint, was inadvertent and bonafide.