IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.881 OF 2010 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Sunder Lal …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: September 22, 2010 Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Revision No.439/2010 as well as the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint No.808/2009, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in file. The case of the applicant is that respondent no.2 Ashwani Kumar filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the applicant Sunder Lal on 16.7.2008 under Section 138 of the Act. On the basis of that complaint, a complaint case no.443 of 2008, Ashwani Kumar v. Sunderlal, was registered and the learned Second Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his order dated 24.7.2008 took cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of the Act against Sanjay Gupta. In compliance of the summoning order, applicant Sunder Lal appeared in the trial court and thereafter he was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C and 313 Cr.P.C. After that the case was fixed for final arguments. According to the 2 applicant Sunder Lal, at the time of preparing final arguments of the case, his counsel came to know that there is name of one Sanjay Gupta in the order of cognizance dated 24.7.2008 and not the name of Sunder Lal (present applicant). Thus, on 30.7.2010, the applicant moved an application before the trial court alleging that the order of cognizance was passed against one Sanjay Gupta and not against the applicant, therefore, the entire trial conducted against the applicant is illegal. Vide order dated 31.8.2010, learned Judicial Magistrate, Hardiwar, rejected the said application observing that the said mistake was a clerical mistake and it can be corrected u/s 362 Cr.P.C. and accordingly amended the name of the applicant Sunder Lal in place of Sanjay Gupta in his earlier order dated 24.7.2008. The applicant challenged that order in the court of Sessions but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2010. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, under the garb of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., in fact, has altered his order dated 24.7.2008 which is not permissible in the eye of law. I do not find force in the argument put forth by learned counsel for the applicant. From a perusal of the complaint as well as the order dated 24.7.2008, it is ample clear that the error which was corrected by the learned Magistrate was only clerical in nature and this is permissible under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and so there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Magistrate dismissing the application moved by the applicant and in the order of the revisional court affirming that order. From the above discussions and in the background of well-settled proposition of law, I am of the considered view that impugned order dated 31.8.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar are correct and justified and require no interference by this Court. 3 For the reasons recorded above, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.9.2010 RG