IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.934 of 2006 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) Girish Chand Ramola & another ……. Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ..…. Respondents Dated: December 19, 2011 Sri R.K.S. Verma, Adv. for the petitioners Sri Shivanand Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. Having heard the learned counsel of the either party, it transpires that three complaint cases were filed by Kamal Kukreja in the concerned court of Magistrate; Case nos.47/05 and 48/05 were filed against Rakesh Chand Ramola while complaint case no.49/05 was filed against Girish Chand Ramola and his company. In all these cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the Act), the order of cognizance was passed on the same date, i.e. on 2.4.2005. It appears that while typing the order of cognizance in complaint case no.49/2005, the name of accused was typed as Rakesh Chand Ramola in flow of previous two other cognizance orders under some misconception, while the name actually ought to have been mentioned as Girish Chand Ramola. So obviously, the name of Rakesh Chand Ramola, as has been mentioned in the cognizance order dated 2.4.2005 in the complaint case no.49/2005, has been mistakenly typed by slip of pen. Thus, his name is struck off in exercise of the continuous superintending powers vested in this Court u/s 483 Cr.P.C. 2 and in his place, the name of Girish Chand Ramola will be understood, read and substituted. In view of the above, the order of cognizance, as against Rakesh Chand Ramola, is hereby quashed. The trial will proceed against Girish Chand Ramola. The petition moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) December 19, 2011 Rajeev Dang