{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1935 OF 2009 Kalika Nagri Sahakri Panstha Maryadit Through its Manager Someshwar Gopal Dikkar Age-40 years, Occ-Service R/o Ghas Galli, Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS Kishor Dharmaji @ Dharamchand Shingvi Age-Major, Occ-Business R/o Mrunal Electronics Gujar Galli, Shani Chowk, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate for applicant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24 th November 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 20.04.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar in Summary Criminal Case No.1838/2007. {2} 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent, though duly served. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and say filed by the present respondent before the trial court. 4. It appears that the applicant has filed a complaint before the JMFC, Ahmednagar u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present respondent. After verification, process was issued and respondent had filed his appearance. Thereafter, plea of the respondent was recorded. Evidence of the complainant also commenced and at the time of cross examination, it is realized that the middle name of the original accused is wrongly typed and hence an application came to be moved before the learned trial court, for correction in the middle name of the respondent in the complaint. After hearing the rival submissions, the JMFC, Ahmednagar rejected the said application relying on the judgment reported in 2009 (2) ALL MR (Journal) 61 in the matter of “Sunderdev V/s Yogesh”. 5. At the outset, it is made clear that this judgment is not applicable to the present case, as on clear perusal of Exhibit-34 indicates that the applicant has not asked for amendment in the body of the complaint whereas the judgment relates in respect of correction of wrong number of cheque in the body of the complaint. In the premise, the JMFC, Ahmednagar has not properly applied his mind to the facts of the case and ratio of the judgment relied {3} on. 6. In the judgment in case of “Maan Agro Centre V/s E.I.D.Parry (India) Ltd.,” reported in 2005 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 699, it is held by this Court that correction in the name and the description of the accused will not prejudice the accused when the accused has already appeared before the trial court and has participated in the trial. This is a correct answer to the controversy before the trial court. In the premise, it is clear the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar below Exhibit-34 in Summary Criminal Case No.1838/2007 dated 20.04.2009 is based on incorrect proposition of law and hence requires to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, the application succeeds. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar below Exhibit-34 in Summary Criminal Case No.1838/2007 dated 20.04.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Rule is thus made absolute as indicate above and application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln1935-09