Amendment of criminal complaint to add new accused is impermissible; revisional orders adverse to accused require notice and hearing.

A Magistrate's later order that clarified an individual had not been validly arrayed as an accused was treated as a rectification of an administrative mistake in issuing summons, not a recall or review of a judicial summoning order. The document also states that a criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be amended to add new accused after filing and summons, because such enlargement materially changes the complaint and is not a curable defect. Revisional interference adverse to proposed accused also required notice and an opportunity of hearing. The revisional and consequential magistrate orders enabling addition of new accused were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Magistrate had recalled a valid summoning order or merely corrected an administrative mistake in the process of issuing summons; (ii) whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended to add persons not originally impleaded as accused and whether such a revisional order could be passed without notice to the proposed accused.

Issue (i): whether the Magistrate had recalled a valid summoning order or merely corrected an administrative mistake in the process of issuing summons

Analysis: Summons had been issued to one accused company by judicial order, while the inclusion of an individual's name in the process fee led to issuance of summons to him as well. The later order clarified that he had not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint and that his appearance was the result of a bona fide mistake. The clarification did not undo the original judicial order summoning the company, but only rectified the administrative error in issuing summons to a person never validly summoned as an accused.

Conclusion: The order dated 21 July 2014 was only a rectification of an administrative mistake and not an impermissible review or recall of a judicial summoning order.

Issue (ii): whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended to add persons not originally impleaded as accused and whether such a revisional order could be passed without notice to the proposed accused

Analysis: There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure permitting amendment of a criminal complaint to introduce new accused after the complaint has been filed and summons have been issued. Such an enlargement is not a mere curable infirmity; it materially changes the complaint and can prejudice the persons sought to be added. Further, revisional interference adverse to the accused could not be made without notice and an opportunity of hearing. On these principles, the revisional order granting liberty to file an application for impleading additional accused could not stand.

Conclusion: The attempt to add new accused by amendment was impermissible, and the revisional order permitting such a course was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, and the impugned revisional and consequential magistrate orders were set aside to the extent they enabled addition of new accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint cannot be amended to implead new accused after filing and summoning where the change is not a mere curable infirmity, and revisional orders adverse to an accused cannot be passed without notice and hearing.

---