Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2017 (4) TMI 1615 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - tenability of the plea made by the petitioner for correction/amendment of the averments in para 6 of Anx. A-1 complaint - HELD THAT - In the instant case it is true that the petitioner has averred in para 6 of Anx. A-1 complaint that the cheque in question was issued by A-2. But it can also be seen from Anx. A-6 cheque produced along with Anx. A-1 complaint itself that the cheque has been issued and signed by one Sri V. Radhakrishnan and not by A-2 Sri P.V. Sudhakaran. Therefore obviously there was no mischievous intention on the part of the complainant in making the said averment and he had nothing to gain by making such a wrong averment. It was only much later that the petitioner has came to know about the said mistake. This Court has no hesitation to hold that such a mistake would only be described as a typographical or clerical mistake which was mechanically carried forward even in the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. The facts dealt with by this Court in Linda John Abraham s case 2013 (2) TMI 572 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA are quite distinct and different from the one dealt with in the present case. In that case accused No. 1 was the company and its Chairman (A-2) Managing Director (A-3) and Director (A-4) were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 3 4 respectively. The cheque in question was issued and signed by the Chairman (A-2) and the Managing Director (A-3) of the Company. There was no averment in the original complaint that accused No. 4 was in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the conduct of the company. It was much later an application for amendment was filed before the Criminal Court for introducing an amendment in the averments of the complaint that accused No. 4 was in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company. This Court has clearly held in Linda John Abraham s case that permitting such an amendment which causes serious prejudice to such an accused is not within the competence of the Criminal Court. Whereas the facts in this case are entirely different. A reading of para 6 of the impugned complaint as well as Anx. A-6 dishonoured cheque which has been produced along with the complaint itself would show that the averments in para 6 of the complaint are typographical or clerical mistake. All that the petitioner seeks is for correcting the word 2nd accused appearing in para 6 of the complaint as 4th accused . The petitioner does not even seek to incorporate a new plea that accused No. 4 was in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the business of the company. The impugned orders of both the Courts below to the extent it has refused the petitioner to correct/amend the mistake in para 6 of Anx. A-1 complaint will stand set aside. The trial Court is directed to allow the correction/amendment of para 6 of Anx. A-1 complaint - Application disposed off.
|