Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Amendments in Criminal Complaints Affecting Substantial Aspects Like Cheque Dates Not Permissible Under Criminal Procedure – Madhya Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma, addressed the critical issue of amendments in criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that amendments, especially those altering substantial aspects like dates on cheques, are impermissible under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Legal Point of the Judgement: The primary legal point in this judgement is the prohibition of amendments in criminal complaints that alter substantial aspects, such as the dates on cheques, under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Anil Kumar, challenged the orders related to the amendment of a complaint under Section 138 and the rejection of an application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had filed a complaint alleging that the accused issued cheques that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, the complainant sought to amend the complaint to correct the cheque dates, which the trial court allowed.

Distinction Between Errors: The court distinguished between simple clerical errors and significant mistakes in complaints, emphasizing that errors in cheque dates are substantial and affect the complaint’s basis.

No Provision for Amendments in Cr.P.C.: The court observed that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for amending criminal complaints, citing precedents such as the case of Dilip vs. State of M.P. and Lekhraj Singh Kushwah vs. Brahmanand Tiwari.

Supreme Court Guidelines on Amendments: Referring to the S.R. Sukumar case, the court stated that amendments could only be allowed for curable infirmities that do not change the original nature of the complaint or prejudice the accused.

Reconsideration of Application Under Section 142: With the amendment deemed unsustainable, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Decision: The High Court quashed the trial court’s order allowing the amendment of the complaint and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881.

 Date of Decision: 18th March 2024.

Anil Kumar  vs. Balwantsingh Sethi

Latest Legal News