* 1 * WP­2137­2011 23. Nov. 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2137 OF 2011 Ramachandra Girijashankar Bharti ......Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents * * * * Ms. Veena R. Gautam h/f. Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. CORAM :­ Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 23rd November, 2011. P.C. :­ 1. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 14th October, 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai issuing process against the petitioner in the proceedings filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the order of amendment of the complaint dated 12th October, 2010. 2. Respondent no.2 filed Complaint No. 3824/S/2009 against the petitioner in the name Rameshkumar Gajanand Bharti alias Ram “ G.S”. The statutory notice sent in respect of dishonour of the cheque was in the same name. It appears that after the order of issuance of process was passed, but before the process was served upon the * 2 * WP­2137­2011 23. Nov. 2011 petitioner, the title of the complaint came to be amended to correct the name of the accused. The correction made was to the middle name of the accused changing it from Gajanand to Girijashankar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner is not the same person as Rameshkumar Gajanand Bharti against whom the complaint was filed as originally, the order of issuance of process must be quashed as an order against a wrong person. She secondly, submits that there is no provision for amendment of complaint in the Criminal Procedure Code. Perusal of the entire record, shows that the petitioner has been described therein not just as Rameshkumar Gajanand Bharti but also by his alias name of Ram G.S. which description is found also in the statutory notice sent prior to filing of the complaint. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that the complaint was filed against a wrong person. Apparently, respondent no.2 realised the mistake in the title of the complaint and has corrected the same with the permission of the Court. The correction of title to the complaint is not the same as the amendment of the complaint. In the circumstances, I find no substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]