Inherent jurisdiction allowed amendment of a criminal complaint to correctly describe a firm accused without prejudicing other accused.

Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be used to permit amendment of a criminal complaint where the Code provides no specific procedure for the situation. The complaint had omitted to state that the firm accused was represented by its managing partner, and the proposed correction was limited to the description of that accused. As the amendment would not prejudice the other accused and a correct description of the firm was necessary for continuation of the proceedings, the complaint was permitted to be amended and the petitions were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, permit amendment of the criminal complaint to correctly describe the firm accused as being represented by its managing partner.

Analysis: The complaint had omitted to state that the firm accused was represented by the managing partner. The Court held that the inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked where the Code did not provide a specific procedure to meet the situation. The proposed amendment was confined to the description of the first accused and would not prejudice the other accused. Correct description of the firm accused was necessary, and the omission could affect the continuation of the proceedings against it.

Conclusion: The Court permitted the amendment of the complaint and allowed the petitions.

---