Crl.Misc.No.M- 33156 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 33156 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.7.2010 Rakesh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala City in complaint case No.391- 2/2.3.2004, titled as Naresh Kumar Aggarwal vs. M/s Dimple Agencies and others vide which the application for amendment filed by the respondent-complainant was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed respondent No.1 to amend the complaint. There was no procedure in the Cr.P.C. Crl.Misc.No.M- 33156 of 2008 2 permitting a complainant to amend the complaint. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Behram S.Doctor vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 638 (Bombay) wherein, in para 13, it was held as under:- “Firstly, there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code by which a complainant can make a prayer to the Magistrate for permitting him to amend the complaint by changing the name of the accused and substituting one accused by another and alleging that the substituted accused had committed the alleged offence. Criminal Courts are bound by law and they are not Court of equity. The law has provided some discretion to them and that is in respect of inflicting punishment, even that discretion is also regulated by law. Therefore, the trial Court had no jurisdiction at all and it was not empowered to permit the respondent No.2 to amend the said complaint by deleting the name of Mr.Dastoor and substituting it by putting the name of the present petitioner Mr.Doctor. The trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to issue the non-bailable warrant against the present petitioner Mr.Doctor, on account of the said amendment effected in the said complaint and that too obviously after three and half years. In fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Crl.Misc.No.M- 33156 of 2008 3 who heard and decided the said revision, should have pointed out these glaring mistakes to the notice of the learned Magistrate who was having the control over the said criminal prosecution. But instead of that, he remanded the records and proceedings back to the said Court by cancelling the non-bailable warrant issued against the present petitioner Mr.Doctor.” Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that respondent No.1 had merely sought to implead respondent No.2 as complainant No.2. The complaint in question had already been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be very convincing but when examined carefully, it is bound to fail. The facts of the present case are peculiar. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner qua dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- in all. In para 2 of the complaint, it has been stated as under:- “That the said M/s Naresh Marketing is also CSA Agent of M/s Paras Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahemdabad and said M/s Paras Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahemdabad has also vide Resolution dated 19.1.2004 authorized M/s Naresh Marketing Ambala Cantt to institute the present Crl.Misc.No.M- 33156 of 2008 4 complaint against the accused, the certified copy of the said resolution enclosed.” In the present case, although the cheques had been issued in the name of respondent No.2, the complaint had been filed by respondent No.1 as the said firm had been authorised to file the complaint vide resolution dated 19.1.2004 by respondent No.2. The medicines and cosmetics had been purchased by the petitioner from respondent No.1 and these have been delivered by respondent No.1 to the accused. The cheques had been issued in the name of respondent No.2. The said cheques were dishonoured when these were presented for encashment before the bank. In these circumstances, the complaint was not liable to fail merely on account of the fact that respondent No.2 had not been impleaded as a party. Hence, impleading of respondent No.2 as complainant No.2 does not result in amendment of the complaint in the real sense. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because of the impleadment of respondent No.2 as complainant No.2. Thus, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is on different facts. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 05, 2010 anita