Judgment · High Court · 2012

These petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the orders, dated 27-04-2008 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1621 and 1622 of 2008 in C.C.No.1171 and 1118 of 2007 respectively, on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petitions filed to amend the cause title of the complainant as Sri Shyam Collections instead of Shyam Sales Collections were dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of more than 5 years.

It is not in dispute before this Court that the accused purchased various types of garments from Sri Shyam Collections and due some amount and to discharge the legally enforceable debt, the accused issued a cheque in favour of Sri Shyam Collections and when it was presented to the bank, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. There is a delay in filing a petition to amend the cause title of complainant’s name.

The above petitions were filed by the petitioner herein- complainant to amend the cause title on the ground that it was a bona fide mistake, that the said mistake was come to the knowledge of the complainant in the first week of April, 2008 and no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the petitions are allowed.

The respondents herein-accused filed counter-affidavit stating that the Court has no authority to meddle with the contents of the complaint and there is no provision under law under which the present petitions are filed, that as a matter of fact, in the chief- affidavit, P.W.1 has stated that the he is the proprietor of Sri Shyam Sales Collections and therefore, it cannot be corrected as Sri Shyam Collections.

According to the learned counsel for the accused, the amendment sought to be ordered is totally a new proprietary concern, which has not given any notice to the accused, that if the amendment is ordered, the entire cause of action would be changed and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petitions. If in drafting concern and

It is not in dispute that the purpose for which the cheque was given, P.W.1 is the proprietary concern of Sri Shyam Collections and issuance of cheque in the name of Sri Shyam Collections. It can be said that the description of the complainant is only an inadvertent mistake said to have been committed by the advocate the complainant’s the complaint. the proposed amendment of proprietary proprietorship concern are two different entities, certainly the contention of the learned counsel for the accused can be accepted and the Criminal Petitions have to be dismissed. The identity of the complainant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accused issued cheque in favour of Sri Shyam Collections. It is not the case of the accused that he has not purchased various garments from Sri Shyam Collections. Amendment sought is only with regard to correct the name of the proprietorship concern. By allowing the petitions, no prejudice would be caused to accused as supply of goods, giving of cheque by the accused to the complainant and dishonour of cheque are not in dispute. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.