Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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