IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2136 of 2010() ------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2010 IN CMP.2695/2009 IN CC.1071/2006 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT – VI, NEYYATTINKARA). .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ JESSAIAN, S/O.PONNAN NADAR, BIJU BHAVAN, KARYOTTUVILAKAM, ANAPPARA, VELLARADA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. R.VISWAN, H/O.SHYNI, POOKKUTTU HOUSE, RAMANKUTTA P.O., NILAMBUR R.S., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.2136 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the complainant in C.C.1071/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-VI, Neyyattinkara filed C.M.P.2695/2009, which was dismissed by Annexure-C order. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-C order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner was aware of the mistake in the Branch where first respondent has maintained an account and drawn the dishonoured cheque and it was brought to the notice of the petitioner only when Crmc 2136/10 2 Manager of the Bank was examined as PW2 and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application to amend the complaint. Reliance was placed in the decision of this Court in Madhavi v. Thupran (1987 (1) KLT 488) and the unreported decision in Crl.M.C.4461/2005. 4. Prayer in Annexure-B copy of C.M.P.2695/2009 is to grant permission to amend the complaint, affidavit filed along with the complaint as well as the proof affidavit, for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Affidavit discloses that the petitioner was under the impression that account of the first respondent was maintained in Neyyattinkara Branch of Neyyattinkara Taluk Co-operative Bank but only later he came to know that branch is Panachamoodu Branch and therefore, the Crmc 2136/10 3 amendment was sought for. By Annexure-C order learned Magistrate dismissed the application for the reason that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for amendment of the complaint or affidavit. 5. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate petitioner cannot be permitted to amend either the affidavit filed along with the complaint or the proof affidavit. But position is different in the case of the complaint. Learned Magistrate has not taken note of the decision of this Court in Madhavi's case (supra) and Crl.M.C.4461/2005. Hence Annexure- C order is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Neyyattinkara is directed to re- consider C.M.P.2695/2009 in accordance with law. Petition is allowed. Annexure-C order is Crmc 2136/10 4 quashed. C.M.P.2695/2009 is remitted back to Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Neyyattinkara for fresh disposal in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.