Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Parshuram Choudhari, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kolhapur, in Summary Criminal Case No. 5535 of 2022. The JMFC had refused the petitioner's application (Exhibit 17) seeking amendment/correction of the cheque number mentioned in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner contended that the respondent, Vijay Sanjay Lohar, had issued a cheque to the petitioner which was dishonoured. After issuing a notice to the respondent, who did not reply, the petitioner filed a complaint. However, due to a typographical error, the cheque number was incorrectly mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner sought to correct this error. The JMFC refused the amendment, leading to the present petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the amendment sought was only to correct a typographical error in the cheque number and would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The court held that the Magistrate has the power to allow such amendment to ensure a fair trial and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the JMFC's order, and permitted the petitioner to carry out the amendment. The court directed the petitioner to file an amended complaint within two weeks and the JMFC to proceed with the case thereafter.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Amendment of Complaint - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Correction of Typographical Error - The petitioner sought amendment of the cheque number in the complaint due to a typographical error. The Magistrate refused, but the High Court held that such amendment is permissible to correct a bona fide mistake and to ensure fair trial, as no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class was justified in refusing the petitioner's application for amendment/correction of the cheque number mentioned in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the JMFC, and permitted the petitioner to carry out the amendment/correction in the number of the cheque mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner was directed to file an amended complaint within two weeks, and the JMFC was directed to proceed with the case thereafter.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Correction of typographical error
- Power of Magistrate to allow amendment
- Summary Criminal Case
- Cheque dishonour
- Procedural fairness
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 187
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1661 of 2025
Mr. Manthan S. Bhandigare i/b Mr. Ajit Savagave for the petitioner, Mr. S. S. Chaudhari APP for the State, Ms. Faiza Gawandi a/w Mr. Gaurav Shenoy, Mr. Parvez Sanadi and Mr. Shahbaz Dhalait for respondent no. 1
Shankar Parshuram Choudhari
Vijay Sanjay Lohar, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class refusing amendment of cheque number in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to amend/correct the cheque number mentioned in the complaint due to typographical error.
Filing Reason
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but the cheque number was incorrectly mentioned due to a typographical error. The Magistrate refused the application for amendment.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No. 2), Kolhapur, refused the application (Exhibit 17) for amendment/correction in the number of cheque mentioned in the complaint in Summary Criminal Case No. 5535 of 2022.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the amendment of the cheque number in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent issued a cheque which was dishonoured, and after notice, a complaint was filed. The cheque number was incorrectly mentioned due to a typographical error, and the amendment sought was only to correct that error, causing no prejudice to the respondent.
Respondent opposed the amendment, but the High Court found no merit in the opposition as the amendment was only to correct a typographical error.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate has the power to allow amendment of pleadings to correct a bona fide typographical error, especially when no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, to ensure a fair trial and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, Petitioner challenges the order passed below Exhibit 17 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No. 2), Kolhapur (for short ‘JMFC’) in Summary Criminal Case No. 5535 of 2022 whereby the learned JMFC has refused amendment/correction in number of cheque mentioned in complaint.
It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent has issued cheque to the petitioner, it was dishonoured. Notice was issued to the respondent, but he did not reply to the said notice. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur, which was registered as Summary Criminal Case No. 5535 of 2022. The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit 17) seeking amendment/correction of the cheque number in the complaint. The JMFC refused the application. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
