Delhi District Court
JsccCumAscj (Nw) : District Courts : ... vs Arvind Etc. Page 1 Of 3 on 27 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL
JSCCcumASCJ (NW) : DISTRICT COURTS : ROHINI : DELHI
Unique ID No. : 02404R1308542005
CC No. : 1810/10/05
U/s : 138 NI Act
P.S. : Vikaspuri
Mamta Tyagi
........... Complainant
Versus
Arjun Mehta ........... Accused
O R D E R
27.04.2012 1 By way of this order, I proceed to dispose of an application filed by the complainant for amendment of the complaint. 2 By way of present application it is submitted by the complainant/ applicant that that at the time of filing of filing of the complaint, there was some defects on behalf the complainant and certain technical defects/ clerical errors and errors of facts have come to the notice of the complainant which are required to be rectified. It is submitted that the complainant want to change the name of the Suit No. 409/11 Gayatri Gupta vs. Arvind Etc. Page 1 of 3 accused Firm and certain other facts as mentioned in paragraph 2 sub clause (a), (b) and (c) of the application.
3 The application has been opposed on behalf of accused and one reply has been filed.
4 I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
5 During the course of arguments, counsel for the applicant referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 45, while the counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgments 1981 Rajdhani Law Reporter (NSC.) 98 and 2008 CRI.L.J. 4643 in support of his contention. 6 It is clear from the contents of the application that the complainant has proposed to amend some vital facts of the complaint and if such additional facts are taken on record, the same shall change the basic fact of the complaint. The complainant wants to change the name of the accused, nature of the transactions and duration of the Suit No. 409/11 Gayatri Gupta vs. Arvind Etc. Page 2 of 3 repayment. There is no procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 regarding amendment of the complaint that too after such a great delay as the application has been filed on 24.01.2011 while the complaint was filed in the year 2006. Moreover, any such amendment, if allowed at this stage, shall certainly cause serious prejudice to the interest of the accused and there will be no end to the litigation. The case in hand is very well covered by the ratio of the judgment referred by the Ld. Counsel for the accused in 2008 CRI.L.J. 4643. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the complainant are not helpful to the counsel for the complainant in the given facts and circumstances.
With these observations, the application in hand is found to be devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Announced in the open Court Today on 27.04.2012 (SANJAY JINDAL) JSCC/ASCJ (NW)/Rohini Courts Delhi Suit No. 409/11 Gayatri Gupta vs. Arvind Etc. Page 3 of 3