IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.27029 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.9.2011 Ved Parkash ....Petitioner Versus M/s Krishna Trading Company ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2011 vide which the prayer for correction in the memorandum of parties of the complaint was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such amendment could not have been allowed and the name of the petitioner which was earlier referred to in the complaint as Ved Parkash could not have been permitted to be changed to Ved Singh. He contends that this is seriously going to prejudice his case. I have considered the matter and am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is unjustified, as correction of the name of the petitioner which has occurred due to a typographical mistake has nothing to do with the complaint and also for the reason that the Crl.Misc.No.27029 of 2011 (O&M) -2- complainant was not prosecuting the case against a wrong person. Throughout, the petitioner has been contesting the proceedings projecting himself to be the person who was intended to be arrayed as an accused by the complainant and at this stage when merely typographical error has been corrected and the name of the accused has been changed from Ved Parkash to Ved Singh, no fault can be found with the order of the learned trial Court more so in the absence of any objection regarding the identity of the persons having been arrayed as accused being raised in the first instance. Further no prejudice is shown to have been caused to him in view of the correction. Dismissed. 6.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss