Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sushmaben Rajendrakumar Jaiswal, filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of orders dated 27.01.2026 and 11.11.2025 passed by the 13th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 2387/2003. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws for offences under Sections 498A, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, her deposition was recorded on 18.10.2012, but she alleged that certain clerical errors crept into the examination-in-chief. She initially filed an application for correction, which was dismissed on 16.06.2014. She then approached the High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 867 of 2015, and the coordinate bench on 10.03.2015 directed the trial court to look into any mistake and rectify it in accordance with law. Pursuant to that order, she filed an application (Exh.17) on 11.11.2015, but the trial court dismissed it on 27.01.2026, citing that the case was at the stage of evidence for a long time and there was gross delay. The High Court observed that the trial court ought to have considered the application on its merits and allowed the correction of the typographical mistake to ensure a fair trial. The court noted that the error was not intentional and could be rectified without prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to correct the typographical error or to give fresh examination-in-chief, and to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Correction of Deposition - Clerical Error - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 313 - The petitioner, complainant in a criminal case under Sections 498A, 504, 114 IPC, sought correction of typographical errors in her examination-in-chief recorded on 18.10.2012. The trial court dismissed her application citing delay and stage of evidence. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have considered the application on merits and allowed correction of the typographical mistake to ensure a fair trial, as the error was not intentional and could be rectified without prejudice to the accused. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of Orders - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the trial court's order dated 27.01.2026 and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to correct the typographical error in her deposition or to give fresh examination-in-chief, as the earlier order of the coordinate bench had directed the trial court to rectify any mistake. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for correction of typographical errors in the examination-in-chief of the complainant, and whether the petitioner is entitled to rectify such errors or give fresh examination-in-chief.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 27.01.2026 and 11.11.2025, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to correct the typographical error in her deposition or to give fresh examination-in-chief, and to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Correction of typographical error in deposition
- Power of trial court to rectify clerical mistakes
- Fair trial
- Section 313 BNSS
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
