Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 March, 2026
CRM-M-72612--2025 (O&M) -1-
131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CRM
CRM-M-72612-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 13.03.2026
Karanjit Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
MS JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. Ashdeep Singh,
Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab.
-.-
MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) P 1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara in Complaint CIS No. NACT-580 NACT 580-2021, 2021, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the application for amendment of the complaint and affidavit of CW-1 CW 1 filed by respondent No.2/complainant has been allowed.
2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that during the course of evidence of the complainant, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant seeking amendment in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of examination-in-chief examination of CW-1.
1. It was submitted in the application that in the present complaint complaint the cheque number could not be mentioned due to an TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612--2025 (O&M) -2- inadvertent typographical mistake. It was stated that at the time of issuance of the legal notice dated 25.11.2021 (Ex.C-3), (Ex.C 3), the cheque number was dictated to the typist, however, the typist mistakenly mentioned the date "11.10.2021" instead of mentioning the cheque No. 470079. Thereafter, when the complaint was typed, the typist copied the contents of the notice and only changed certain words, as a result of which the cheque number again remained unmen unmentioned in the complaint. It was further submitted that the said omission occurred due to a typographical error and was neither intentional nor wilful.
wilful. It was also pointed out that while tendering the documents during evidence, the original cheque bearing N No.470079 o.470079 had already been exhibited as Ex.C-1.
Ex.C 1. On these grounds, the complainant sought permission to amend the complaint and the examination-in-chief examination chief affidavit by mentioning cheque No.470079 in the fourth line of paragraph No.2 on page No.1 of the complai complaint nt and also sought deletion of the words "complainant in the" appearing in the second line of paragraph No.2 and in the legal notice exhibit C3.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, while deciding the application, observed that upon perusal of the complaint as well as the affidavit of examination--in-chief chief of the complainant, the cheque number had not been mentioned and instead the date of the cheque i.e. 11.10.2021 had been mentioned. The learned Magistrate further took into considera consideration tion that the original cheque bearing No. 470079 dated 11.10.2021 had already been placed on record and exhibited, and therefore the mistake appeared to be inadvertent in nature. The Court also noticed that the complainant had not yet been cross cross-examined and nd thus no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the correction in the complaint and the affidavit of examination-in-chief examination chief was permitted. While arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612--2025 (O&M) -3- Supreme Court urt in Bansal Milk Chilling Center v. Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. & another, 2025 INSC 899, 899, wherein it was held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended even after taking cognizance and that the primary consideration is that no prejudice should be caused to the accused. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Rameshwar Dass v. M/s Kakrala Trading Co. & others 2023 NCPHHC 101169 101169,, wherein it was held that an unintentional typographical mistake regarding the cheque number can be corrected by way of amendment in the complaint.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning and relying upon the above-
above mentioned precedents, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the amendment sought was only to rectify a typographical mistake and would not change the nature of the case. Accordingly, the application moved by the complainant for amendment of the complaint as well as the affidavit of examination-in--chief of CW-1 was allowed.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly allowed the amendment sought by the complainant at a hhighly ighly belated stage after the complainant had already tendered her affidavit of examination examination-in-chief chief and the petitioner had exercised his right of cross-examination cross examination under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that the le learned arned JMIC has recorded an erroneous factual finding that the complainant was yet to be cross-
cross examined, whereas in fact the complainant had already been cross cross-examined examined on 04.03.2024, therefore the premise on which the amendment was allowed is factually incorrect.
orrect. It has also been argued that the amendment sought is not a mere TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612--2025 (O&M) -4- clerical or typographical correction but amounts to curing a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case, as mentioning the cheque number is a foundational ingredient of a complaint under under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, permitting such amendment after the complainant has already entered the witness box enables the complainant to improve the case and fill up gaps in the pleadings and evidence, which which is impermissible in criminal proceedings. It is further contended that the impugned order overlooks the prejudice caused to the accused who had structured his defence on the basis of the original complaint, statutory notice and affidavit on record, an and d thus the order suffers from non-application non application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara. It has been contended that the amendment sought by the complainant was only to correct an inadvertent typographical omission regarding the cheque number and the same does not alter the nature of the complai complaint nt in any manner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the original cheque bearing the relevant number was already placed on record and exhibited as Ex.C Ex.C-1, 1, and therefore the amendment merely clarifies the existing record. It is thus argued that the learned Magistrate has rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the amendment and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present pe petition.
8. No doubt, the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that the complainant was yet to be cross-examined cross examined by the accused. The record TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612--2025 (O&M) -5- would show that the complainant had already been cross cross-examined examined on 04.03.2024.
However, such incorrect incorrect factual observation does not materially affect the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The cheque in question was already on record and had been exhibited as Ex.C Ex.C-1, 1, and the amendment sought was only with regard to mentioning of the cheque number which, according to the complainant, remained omitted due to inadvertence while drafting the complaint and the affidavit of examination-in-chief.
examination chief. The identity of the cheque itself was never in dispute and the document was already part of the record. Therefore, merely permitting the complainant to mention the cheque number in the complaint and affidavit cannot be said to cause any real prejudice to the petitioner petitioner-accused accused nor can it be treated as permitting the complainant to change the natu nature re of the case.
9. The contention of the petitioner that the amendment amounts to filling up a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case also does not merit acceptance. The amendment allowed by the learned Magistrate is only in the nature of rectifying an a inadvertent omission and does not introduce any new cause of action or alter the basic ingredients of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case of Rameshwar Dass (supra) has held that correction of cheque numbers in the complaint can be permitted where the mistake occurred due to a typographical error and such correction does not change the nature of the complaint. In the said case, even the wrong cheque numbers mentioned in the complaint were permitted to be corrected. The present case stands on a still better footing inasmuch as the cheque itself was already on record as Ex.C-1 Ex.C 1 and only its number could not be mentioned at certain places in the complaint and affidavit due due to inadvertence.
TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-72612--2025 (O&M) -6-
10. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in accordance with law and the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictionall error warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
March 13, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.16 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document