2015 (7) TMI 1260 - SC - Indian Laws

Court clarifies single cognizance, permits complaint amendment to avoid multiple proceedings

S.R. Sukumar Versus S. Sunaad Raghuram

The court clarified that cognizance was taken only once, on 21.06.2007, not twice as claimed by the appellant. Regarding amending a complaint, the court ... Amendment in a criminal complaint - the amendment was made prior to taking cognizance of the offence - Held that: - 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 (8) TMI 449 - SUPREME COURT], 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:1. Timing of Magistrate's cognizance of the complaint.2. Permissibility of amending a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.Detailed Analysis:1. Timing of Magistrate's Cognizance of the Complaint:The primary issue is determining when the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint. The appellant argued that cognizance was taken twice, first on 18.05.2007 and then on 21.06.2007, which is impermissible under the law. The respondent contended that no cognizance was taken on 18.05.2007, and the amendment was made to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.The court clarified the meaning of 'cognizance' under Section 200 Cr.P.C., stating that mere presentation of the complaint and recording of the complainant's statement does not constitute taking cognizance. Cognizance involves the Magistrate judicially applying their mind to the complaint's contents to decide whether to proceed. The court cited several precedents, including Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Das Partani and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, to explain that cognizance means judicial notice of an offence, not merely learning about it.In this case, the Magistrate recorded the complainant's statement in part on 18.05.2007 but had not applied judicial mind to take cognizance. The actual cognizance was taken on 21.06.2007 when the Magistrate issued the process to the appellant. Thus, the contention that cognizance was taken twice is incorrect.2. Permissibility of Amending a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.:The appellant argued that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for amending a complaint, and the Magistrate erred in allowing the amendment. The respondent countered that while there is no specific provision for amendment, there is also no bar against it, and the amendment was necessary to avoid multiple proceedings.The court acknowledged that there is no explicit provision in the Code for amending complaints. However, it referred to U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery, where the Supreme Court allowed an amendment to correct a curable infirmity in the complaint. The court held that amendments to correct simple, curable infirmities that do not prejudice the accused can be permitted.In this case, the amendment involved adding substantial new allegations (paras 11(a) and 11(b)) about a poem written by the appellant, which was considered a new cause of action. The court noted that the amendment did not change the complaint's original nature of defamation and was allowed to avoid multiple proceedings. Since the summons had not been issued, no prejudice was caused to the appellant.The court concluded that the High Court rightly upheld the Magistrate's decision to allow the amendment, and the order did not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.