TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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