Court denies bank name change in complaint amendment; directs revision for prayer clause

The court ruled that the requested amendment to change the name of the bank in the complaint was not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court set aside the order allowing the amendment, emphasizing that the change constituted a substantial alteration to the complaint. The court directed the applicant to pursue a revision for the other prayer clause, ultimately disposing of the application accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Amendment of complaint after plea recorded, nature of amendment sought, legality of amendment u/s Cri.P.C, revision of order of issuing process.

Summary:

Amendment of Complaint after Plea Recorded:
The main issue in this case was the permission granted to the respondent-complainant to amend the complaint after the plea of the applicants was recorded. The amendment sought was to correct the name of the bank in the complaint from Punjab National Bank to Veershaiva Co-operative Bank. The JMFC allowed the amendment despite the opposition of the applicant, leading to a dispute regarding the validity of the amendment.

Legality of Amendment u/s Cri.P.C:
The advocate for the applicants argued that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cri.P.C) permitting such an amendment to be made. Changing the name of the bank in the complaint would render the notice issued to the applicants under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act faulty. It was contended that the order of the JMFC allowing the amendment should be quashed and set aside.

Revision of Order of Issuing Process:
The advocate for respondent No.1 contended that the order of issuing process is revisable, suggesting that the applicant should have filed a revision instead of challenging the amendment directly. However, the court found that the nature of the amendment sought by the respondent could not be permitted at that stage. The court emphasized that the change in the name of the bank resulted in a substantial change in the complaint, making the amendment impermissible.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the amendment allowing the change in the name of the bank was not permissible and set aside the order, quashing the amendment. The court clarified that the application was disposed of only in respect of one prayer clause, while directing the applicant to pursue the alternate remedy of filing a revision for the other prayer clause. The application was ultimately disposed of accordingly.

---