Case: S.R.Sukumar Vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram

3. On 9.05.2007, respondent filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the first appellant and his mother Smt. H.R. Leelavathi (A-2) alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 499 and 500 IPC. In the complaint, the respondent has alleged that he was born of the wedlock of his father late Shri S.G. Raghuram and mother Late Smt. B.S. Girija. However, his father after the death of his mother Girija, married another divorcee lady namely Smt. H.R. Leelavathi (A-2) who at the time of the second marriage, already had a son aged six years S.H. Sukumar (appellant), born from her previous wedlock. The respondent alleged in the complaint that hisname i.e. Late Shri S.G. Raghuram has been purportedly used by the appellant portraying as if he is his natural father. Respondent alleged that the act of the appellant using name offather as his own father often created doubts among the near and dear ones about the legitimacy of the respondent-complainant and integrity and character of his father which had affected thereputation.4. Respondent filed the complaint on 9.05.2007 and his statement was recorded in part on 18.05.2007 and further recorded on 23.05.2007. Next day i.e. on 24.05.2007, respondent moved an application seeking amendment to the complaint by praying for insertion of paras 11(a) and 11(b) in the complaint stating the fact of poem namedwritten by the appellant in connivance with his mother (A-2) depicting the respondent aswith an intention to malign the character, image and status of the respondent. The trial court allowed the amendment on 24.05.2007 and took the cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of the process to the appellant vide Order dated 21.06.2007. Aggrieved by the Order dated 21.06.2007, the appellant approached the High Court praying for quashing the proceedings in PCR No.8409/2007 registered as C.C. No.15851/2007 on the ground that there is no provision under the Code, providing for amendment of the complaint. The High Court vide impugned Order dated 20.01.2012 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant observing that before the date of allowing amendment application i.e. 24.05.2007, cognizance of case was not taken and therefore no prejudice is caused to the appellant. Further, the High Court was of the view that if amendment is not allowed, then the multiple proceedings would have ensued between the parties.

Reasoning:
In our considered view, the above decision is of no assistance to the appellant. A perusal of the above decision would show that this Court has emphasized upon the satisfaction of the Court to the commission of offence as a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offence. However, in the facts of the said case, Court was of the view that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate once the Magistrate applied his mind on the contents of the complaint and on the satisfaction that prima facie case existed.Insofar as merits of the contention regarding allowing of amendment application, it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints. In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery And Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 684 , wherein the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that is, instead of Modi Industries Ltd. the name of the company was mentioned as Modi Distillery and the name was sought to be amended.In the instant case, the amendment application was filed on 24.05.2007 to carry out the amendment by adding paras 11(a) and 11 (b). Though, the proposed amendment was not a formal amendment, but a substantial one, the Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly on the ground that no cognizance was taken of the complaint before the disposal of amendment application. Firstly, Magistrate was yet to apply the judicial mind to the contents of the complaint and had not taken cognizance of the matter. Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered to be issued to the accused, no prejudice would be caused to the accused. Thirdly, the amendment did not change the original nature of the complaint being one for defamation. Fourthly, the publication of poembeing in the nature of subsequent event created a new cause of action in favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the respondent by filing a separate complaint and therefore to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application. Considering these factors which weighed in the mind of the courts below, in our view, the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the amendment application and the impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.