Pre-trial amendment in cheque dishonour complaints may delete transaction particulars, and a later request cannot be rejected on maintainability alone.

In a pre-trial complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant was entitled to delete particulars relating to the date or period of the alleged transaction, because such detail was not treated as a mandatory requirement for maintaining the complaint and any omission could be addressed in defence. The trial court's refusal on the ground that deletion would weaken the complaint was set aside, and the amendment was allowed. A later amendment application substituting a different period could not be rejected as not maintainable once the earlier rejection was found unsustainable; that application was also set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant's application to delete the words referring to the date or period of the alleged transaction in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be allowed before commencement of trial. (ii) Whether the second amendment application, seeking substitution of the deleted words with a different period, was liable to be rejected as not maintainable after rejection of the earlier application.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant's application to delete the words referring to the date or period of the alleged transaction in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be allowed before commencement of trial.

Analysis: The complaint was still at the pre-trial stage. The complainant was entitled to decide the contents and level of detail in his pleading. The presence or absence of the precise date or period of transaction was not treated as a mandatory condition for maintaining the complaint, and the defence could take advantage of any omission if relevant. The trial court's concern that deletion would weaken the complaint was held to be an improper basis for refusing the request.

Conclusion: The rejection of the first amendment application was set aside, and the complainant was permitted to delete the specified words from the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the second amendment application, seeking substitution of the deleted words with a different period, was liable to be rejected as not maintainable after rejection of the earlier application.

Analysis: Once the first rejection order was held unsustainable and the first amendment was allowed, the foundation for treating the second application as non-maintainable disappeared. The second order was therefore not sustainable on the maintainability ground alone. As the merits of the second request had not been examined by the trial court, the proper course was to remit the application for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rejection of the second application was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal.

Final Conclusion: The complainant succeeded in obtaining deletion of the impugned words from the complaint, and the connected amendment request was revived for reconsideration by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a pre-trial request to delete pleading particulars may be allowed at the complainant's discretion, and a subsequent amendment application cannot be rejected on maintainability grounds when the earlier rejection has been held unsustainable.

---