[NI Act] MP High Court Refuses Permission To Rectify Incorrect Mention Of Cheque Dates In Complaint, Says It's A Substantial Defect

Madhya Pradesh High Court has iterated that the defect of mentioning incorrect dates of cheque in the complaint cannot be cured since there is no provision in the CrPC to amend the criminal complaint.The single-judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma observed that the defect in the dates of the cheque is a 'substantial infirmity', especially when summons have already been issued to the accused and he has appeared before the trial court.“…. The amendment if permitted would change the entire nature of the complaint as the date of the cheques itself would be altered. The facts proposed to be inserted by way of the amendment are not at all based upon subsequent events. If the amendment is permitted it would certainly cause prejudice to the accused….”, the bench sitting at Indore opined that the trial court has erred by allowing the amendments sought by the respondent. Reliance was placed by the High Court on the apex court decision in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015).Before dismissing the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application preferred by the accused, the court emphasised that the amendment to a limited extent was allowed in S.R. Sukumar since it did not change the original nature of the complaint. The facts proposed by the amendment in that particular case were based on subsequent events. Justice Verma, therefore, opined that the trial court had committed an error by allowing the application for making amendments to the original complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act. Similarly, the accused had also challenged the trial court's order that rejected his Section 142 application (expiry of limitation period) before the High Court.In a few other cases relied upon by the complainant/respondent, the amendment was sought for correcting the name of the complainant company upon a subsequent event like a merger or correcting the name of the bank on which the cheque was drawn, the court further elucidated. Such amendments do not change the nature of the complaint since they are curable defects, the court underscored. The issue raised in the cases mentioned by the respondent/complainant was not whether the amendment in a complaint under the provisions of Cr.P.C can be permitted or not, the court differentiated.In Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) and Lekhraj Singh Kushwah v. Brahmanand Tiwari (2013), it has been categorically held by the High Court itself that a mistake in the cheque number, which is akin to the mistake in the date of the cheque, cannot be corrected by way of an amendment. The court had also noted then that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C to amend the criminal complaint.The court accordingly quashed the order passed by the trial court with a specific direction to reconsider and redecide the application filed by the accused under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The incorrect dates of the cheques, as admitted by the respondent/complainant, are found simultaneously in the notice issued to the accused, the original complaint and the affidavit filed along with it, the court pointed out.BackgroundAccording to the complainant, the accused issued four cheques to satisfy the debt to the tune of Rs 7,00,000/-. On 11/06/2019, the cheques were returned unpaid when presented for encashment due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the accused on 18.06.2019.In the complaint, the dates of the cheques were mentioned as 10/5/2018 and 15/5/2018 though the cheques produced before the court contained the dates of 10.05.2019 and 15.05.2019. This prompted the accused to apply to the trial court under Section 142 of the NI Act. However, the complainant contended before the trial court that the change of dates was a mere typographical error that could be rectified through an amendment. Rejecting the plea made by the accused and accepting the version of the complainant, the trial court noted that a complaint cannot be dismissed only based on technicalities.Case Title: Anil Kumar v. Balwantsingh SethiCase No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 23534 of 2023Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 74Click Here To Read/Download Order

[NI Act] MP High Court Refuses Permission To Rectify Incorrect Mention Of Cheque Dates In Complaint, Says It's A Substantial Defect

Sebin James

Tags