CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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