vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2008 M/s.Neeraj Cement Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Bombay J.C.B. Earth Movers & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Tejas Deshpande for Applicants Mr.S.D. Dharmadhikari for Respondent No.1 Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 25, 2008 JUNE 25, 2008 JUNE 25, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The main grievance of the applicants is that the respondent-complainant has been permitted to amend the complaint after the plea of the applicants was recorded. The process was issued by the JMFC, Vashi on 7.10.2005. An application for amendment of the complaint was filed by the respondent on 12.1.2007. The amendment sought was for correcting the name of the bank in the complaint from Punjab National Bank to Veershaiva Cooperative Bank. The amendment has been allowed despite the opposition of the applicant herein. The JMFC, Vashi by his order dated 24.10.2007 held that the proposed amendment in the complaint would not change the nature of the case. : 2 : 2. The learned advocate appearing for the applicants submits that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. permitting such an amendment to be made. According to him, if the amendment is allowed by changing the name of the bank, notice issued to the applicants demanding the amount u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also faulty as the name of the Punjab National Bank has been mentioned and not of Veershaiva Cooperative Bank. He submits therefore that the order of the JMFC, Vashi must be quashed and set aside. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the order of issuing process is a revisable order and, therefore, the applicant ought to have filed the revision. 4. There can be no doubt that an amendment of the nature sought by the respondent No.1 herein cannot be permitted. The complainant had averred in his complaint that the cheques were drawn on a particular bank. The verification has also been recorded and process has been issued. Further, the plea of the accused has also been recorded. No amendment could have been allowed in the complaint at this stage. Besides, the change of the name of the bank in my opinion, results in a substantial change in the complaint and, therefore, such an : 3 : amendment cannot be allowed. 5. The order allowing the amendment is set aside and is quashed. It is made clear that the application is being disposed of only in respect of prayer clause (a). As regards prayer clause (b), the applicant has an alternate remedy of filing a revision and, therefore, he is relegated to that remedy. 6. Application is disposed of accordingly.