1 A-1878-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1878 OF 2010 Paresh Bhogilal Doshi ..Applicant /Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. D. S. Joshi for Applicant. Mrs. A. S. Pai – Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1. Mr. G. G. Togani for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Criminal Application is directed against the Order dated 20th March 2010 passed by the trial court whereby the application for amendment of the complaint filed by the complainant came to be allowed. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court was pleased to issue process against the accused. Notice was issued against the accused 2 A-1878-10 on 20th November, 2009. The grievance of the applicant is that the original complaint was filed against Mittal Rohit Dodhia, whereas the name of the applicant is Paresh Bhogilal Doshi. It is contended that since the original complaint was filed against Mittal Rohit Dodhia, the trial court was not justified in allowing the application for amendment and permitted the complainant to substitute the original name of the accused by inserting the name of the present applicant. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order granting permission to amend the complaint cannot be sustained in law. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the application for amendment of the complaint filed by the complainant as well as the impugned order. In the application for permission to amend the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that the present applicant has admitted that his full name is Paresh Bhogilal Doshi and not Paresh Bhogilal Shah. Counsel for the applicant is unable to show any averment in the body of the criminal complaint that he never admitted the above referred fact, in absence thereof, it is difficult to appreciate the contention canvassed by the learned counsel. 4. So far as decision of this Court in the case of Behram S. Doctor vs. 3 A-1878-10 State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2003(4) Mh.L.J. 505] is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 13/14 of the said decision. Perusal of these observation would show that they have no bearing so far as the present case is concerned, though there is no quarrel with the proposition of law. In the instant case since the applicant has not disputed the fact that Paresh Bhogilal Doshi and Paresh Bhogilal Shah are one and the same person. In the circumstances, therefore, the said decision does not further the case of the applicant. 5. Criminal Application suffers from lack of merits. Same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.)