2025 (7) TMI 1532 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - power of criminal court to order amendment of a complaint filed u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C. post cognizance stage - By virtue of the impugned order the High Court has allowed the petition holding that the amendment sought was not in the nature of a typographical error but it had a wider impact upon the entire matter in dispute and therefore it changed the nature of the complaint. The High Court also found merit in the contention of the respondents that the amendment was sought as no GST was leviable on milk. HELD THAT - The issue whether a criminal court has power to order amendment of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. In S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram 2015 (7) TMI 1260 - SUPREME COURT this Court held that What is discernible from U.P. Pollution Control Board case is that an easily curable legal infirmity could be cured by means of a formal application for amendment. If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment no prejudice could be caused to the other side notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment the court may permit such an amendment to be made. On the contrary if the amendment sought to be made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side then the court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint. A careful reading of the judgment in S.R. Sukumar s case reveals that the said judgment followed the earlier judgment of this Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery and Others 1987 (8) TMI 449 - SUPREME COURT . In Modi Distillery after the process was issued to the respondents therein a revision was filed by few of the accused and a Section 482 petition was filed by few other accused. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction the High Court quashed the proceedings holding that vicarious liability could not be saddled on the Directors unless Modi Industries Limited was arrayed as accused. The Complainant in that case had arrayed Modi Distillery an industrial unit and averred that Modi Distillery was a Company. The High Court focusing on the technical flaw in the complaint quashed the proceedings on the premise that Modi Industries Limited was not made an accused. The complaint and the application for amendment is carefully perused. The amendment was moved at a stage when after summons being issued to the respondents the chief examination of the complainant had concluded and when cross-examination was awaited. The amendment made is also only with regard to the products supplied. According to the complainant while what was supplied was milk by an inadvertent error Desi Ghee (milk products) was mentioned. The error which occurred in the legal notice was carried in the complaint also. On the facts of the present case and considering the stage of the trial it is found that absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the accused/respondents. The actual facts will have to be thrashed out at the trial. As to what impact the amendment will have on the existence of debt or other liability is for the Trial Court to decide based on the evidence. It was a curable irregularity which the Trial Court rightly addressed by allowing the amendment. It could not be said that by allowing the amendment at a stage when the evidence of the complainant was incomplete failure of justice would occasion. The High Court completely mis-directed itself in delving into the aspects of leviability of GST which would be the concern of the appropriate authorities under the relevant statute. It could also not be said that the amendment altered the nature and character of the complaint - The judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether a criminal court has the power to allow amendment of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after cognizance is taken.Whether an amendment that corrects a typographical error but changes the description of goods in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alters the nature of the complaint.Whether allowing such an amendment causes prejudice to the accused/respondents.The relevance of the stage of trial in considering the permissibility of amendments to the complaint.The applicability of principles under Sections 216 and 217 of the Cr.P.C. regarding alteration of charges to amendments of complaints.Whether the court should consider external statutory implications (such as GST liability) when deciding on the amendment of a complaint under the NI Act.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that a criminal court does have the power to allow amendments to a complaint post-cognizance, provided the amendment relates to a curable infirmity and does not cause prejudice to the accused. It rejected the submission that no amendment is permissible after cognizance is taken, emphasizing that "it is fallacious to contend that in no circumstance can amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance is taken."The amendment correcting the description of goods from "Desi Ghee (milk products)" to "milk" was held to be a "curable irregularity" and did not change the nature or character of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.Allowing the amendment at a stage when the complainant's evidence was incomplete (after summons issued and chief examination concluded but before cross-examination) would not cause prejudice to the accused/respondents.The High Court erred in considering the issue of GST leviability while deciding on the amendment, as such statutory concerns are outside the purview of the criminal court deciding on the complaint amendment.The Court restored the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment and directed expeditious continuation of the trial, permitting parties to apply for recall of witnesses if necessary.

RATIONALE:

The Court relied on the precedent set in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram which permits amendment of complaints for "an easily curable legal infirmity" if "no prejudice could be caused to the other side," regardless of whether cognizance has been taken.The judgment in U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery was cited to demonstrate that even post-cognizance, formal amendments substituting names or correcting defects are permissible to prevent miscarriage of justice.The Court distinguished a prior judgment disallowing amendment of dates on cheques in NI Act cases where the amendment affected substantive issues such as limitation and existence of funds, emphasizing the present amendment concerned only a typographical error.The Court applied the principles under Sections 216 and 217 of the Cr.P.C. relating to alteration of charges, highlighting the key test of whether prejudice to the accused would result and the availability of procedural safeguards such as recalling witnesses.The Court underscored that the complaint under Section 138 NI Act must be in writing and that amendments should be liberally allowed to ensure justice, provided they do not alter the fundamental nature of the complaint or cause prejudice.The Court rejected the High Court's approach of considering GST implications, noting that such issues fall within the domain of the relevant tax authorities and not the criminal court adjudicating the complaint amendment.