IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1810 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2008 IN MP 13914/2008 IN CC.1588/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ M/S.TRICHUR FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD. EAST FORT, THRISSUR 680 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.C.ANTONY. BY ADV. MR.RANJITH XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SALIH C.A., S/O.ABDU KAJAH MANZIL, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 1810 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.1588/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur. First respondent is the accused. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after recording the sworn statement on Annexure-A1 complaint, alleging that first respondent committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In paragraph 4 of the complaint there is a statement that after dishonour of the cheque an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the accused. Petitioner filed Annexure-A6 petition (M.P.No.13914/2008) to amend the complaint by deleting the statement in the complaint that Rs.40,000/- was received from the accused subsequent to the dishonour. Annexure-A7 objection was filed by first respondent contending that the admission cannot be taken away. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition under Annexure-A8 order. This petition is CRMC 1810/09 2 filed to quash Annexure-A8 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that while preparing the complaint the counsel has committed a mistake in paragraph 4 to the effect that there was a payment of Rs.40,000/- subsequent to the dishonour when in fact there was no such payment and in the sworn statement of the petitioner such payment was not mentioned and therefore learned Magistrate should have allowed the amendment of the complaint as sought for. It was argued that it was only a clerical error that was sought to be corrected. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexure-A8 order, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Whether the fact pleaded in the complaint is a mistake or not, cannot be decided at this stage. When the complaint contains an unambiguous recital that subsequent to the dishonour Rs.40,000/- was received from the accused, that admission in the complaint cannot be taken away by filing an application for amendment. Question whether the said statement was a mistaken fact as stated in the complaint is to be decided by the Magistrate on the evidence let CRMC 1810/09 3 in. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.