Rajasthan HC Permits Complainant to Correct Dates of Cheque Presentation & Dishonour In Cheque Bounce Complaint
The Rajasthan High Court permitted the complainant to correct the dates of cheque presentation and dishonour in the complaint in a cheque bounce case.
The Court was hearing a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioners and affirmed the order passed by Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the complainant-petitioners for amendment in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed, “this Court deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both the orders impugned dated 31.7.2018 and 28.08.2019 are quashed and set aside.”
Advocate Sudarshan Kumar Laddha appeared for the Appellant and PP M. K. Sheoran appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The original complainant Mahaveer Prasad Suman filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent Lalit Mohan Sharma currently pending trial. During the trial, the complainant applied with an affidavit to amend the complaint and correct typographical errors in the legal notice. The complainant sought corrections to the dates mentioned in the legal notice, complaint, and affidavit, asserting the complaint was filed within the limitation period. Despite the trial Court's dismissal, the petitioner challenged the decision in the Revision Court, which also upheld the dismissal.
The Court noted that even the trial Court while taking cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has considered the date of dishonour of the cheque to be December 04, 2015, and not November 04, 2015, because, in that eventuality, the trial Court would not have taken cognizance of the complaint being barred by limitation.
The Court mentioned the decision in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 609 and quoted, “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.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the order of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court.
Finally, the Court disposed of the miscellaneous Petition.
Cause Title: Mahaveer Prasad Suman v. Lalit Mohan Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:17043)