Court allows corrections for minor clerical errors in complaint; substantive changes not permitted.

The court allowed the Union of India's application for correction of clerical and typographical mistakes in specific paragraphs of the complaint, permitting changes that were minor in nature. Corrections altering the substance of the complaint were not accepted. The court set aside the initial order, granting permission for corrections in certain paragraphs while maintaining the original content in others. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition was partially allowed, emphasizing the permissibility of corrections for clerical errors in legal documents.

---

---

Issues:
Correction of clerical mistake in the complaint.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a criminal misc. petition challenging the dismissal of an application by the petitioner, Union of India, seeking correction of typographical and clerical mistakes in the complaint. The petitioner argued that the corrections were minor in nature and did not change the substance of the complaint. The petitioner cited precedents where similar corrections were allowed by the court. On the other hand, the non-petitioner contended that the application sought to change the entire complaint itself and referenced specific paragraphs in the application where substantial changes were requested, such as deleting names of directors. The non-petitioner argued that such changes were not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

The court considered the submissions of both parties and examined the application seeking corrections in the complaint. It noted that some corrections were of typographical and clerical nature, such as dates, numbers, and minor word substitutions, which could be allowed for the ends of justice. The court referred to previous judgments, including one from the Hon'ble Madras High Court, which supported the allowance of corrections for typographical or clerical mistakes. The court held that such corrections were not prohibited by the Cr.P.C and could be permitted.

Ultimately, the court accepted the application for correction in certain paragraphs of the complaint (Para Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 to 16) where the corrections were of clerical and typographical nature. However, corrections that changed the nature or substance of the complaint, such as those in Para Nos. 9 and 12, were not accepted. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application to the extent indicated, directing the complainant to make the permitted corrections while leaving out those that were not allowed. As a result, the criminal misc. petition was allowed in part.

---