CRM No. M-19276 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-19276 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2009 Som Nath and others ...Petitioners Versus Rekha alias Maggi ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Gaurave Bhayyia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the order dated 30th May, 2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar as well as order dated 5th May, 2009 in revision, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The only grievance in the petition is that the Magistrate allowed the application for amendment of the complaint. In para 6 thereof, the complainant sought to mention “October, 2005” instead of “October, 2006”. The complainant submitted that the error is totally inadvertent and thus, she may be allowed to correct the same. The trial court allowed this prayer by coming to the conclusion that the complaint is at its initial stage and by correction, no prejudice is to be caused to the opposite side. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the same by a detailed order. The revisional court came to the conclusion that the complainant had only sought to CRM No. M-19276 of 2009 2 correct a typographical error and thus the same deserved to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said correction has changed the entire complexion of the complaint and thereby a grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner. According to the counsel, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for amendment of a complaint and thus, the impugned orders deserve to be set-aside. He has relied upon judgment reported as V.K. Gupta vs. Manjit Kaur, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 431 in support of his contention. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the complaint, filed by Rekha complainant, seeking the summoning of the accused for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 & 120-B IPC, she had contended that in the month of October, 2005, all the accused again gave beating to the complainant and turned her out of the matrimonial home in three wearing apparels, but there after in the end of October, 2006, the parents and relatives of the complainant after giving a cash amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused Ram Gopal and Som Nath, again rehabilitated her in her in-laws house. While making this averment, “October, 2006” was wrongly mentioned. Thus, the complainant sought to carry out the necessary correction and to substitute words “October, 2005” instead of “October, 2006”. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by correction of said typographical error. Reliance on V.K. Gupta's case (supra), is misplaced. In the said case, application for making CRM No. M-19276 of 2009 3 correction with regard to date of presentation of cheque was sought to be made. The matter was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In view of the correction, a question of limitation came into play. It was, thus, held that the complainant had to suffer for defect in the complaint. However, in the present case, there is no such situation. It is only a typographical error, which is sought to be corrected. It is inexplicable how the petitioner would be prejudiced by the same. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 20, 2009 'rajpal'