CRM-M-72612- 131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Karanjit Singh State of Punjab and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Ashdeep Singh Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P Phagwara in Complaint CIS No. NACT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the application for amendment of the complaint and affidavit of CW allowed. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that during the course of evidence of the complainant, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant seeking amendment in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of examination that in the present compla -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara in Complaint CIS No. NACT-580 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the application for amendment of the complaint and affidavit of CW-1 filed by respondent No.2/complainant has been The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that during of evidence of the complainant, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant seeking amendment in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of examination-in-chief of CW-1. It was submitted in the application that in the present complaint the cheque number could not be mentioned due to an -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-72612-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing/setting aside the order dated 1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 580-2021, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the application for amendment of the 1 filed by respondent No.2/complainant has been The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that during of evidence of the complainant, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant seeking amendment in the complaint as well as in 1. It was submitted in the application int the cheque number could not be mentioned due to an under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing/setting aside the order dated 1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2021, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the application for amendment of the 1 filed by respondent No.2/complainant has been The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that during of evidence of the complainant, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant seeking amendment in the complaint as well as in 1. It was submitted in the application int the cheque number could not be mentioned due to an TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612- inadvertent typographical mistake. It was stated that at the time of issuance of the legal notice dated 25.11.2021 (Ex.C typist, however, the typist mistakenly mentioning the cheque No. 470079. Thereafter, when the complaint was typed, the typist copied the contents of the notice and only changed certain words, as a result of which the cheque number again remained unmen further submitted that the said omission occurred due to a typographical error and was neither intentional nor wi documents during evidence, the original cheque bearing N been exhibited as Ex.C amend the complaint and the examination No.470079 in the fourth line of paragraph No.2 on page No.1 of the complai also sought deletion of the words “complainant in the” appearing in the second line of paragraph No.2 and in the legal notice exhibit C3. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, while deciding the application, observed that upon of examination- mentioned and instead the date of the cheque i.e. 11.10.2021 had been mentioned. The learned Magistrate further took into considera bearing No. 470079 dated 11.10.2021 had already been placed on record and exhibited, and therefore the mistake appeared to be inadvertent in nature. The Court also noticed that the complainant had not yet been cross no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the correction in the complaint and the affidavit of examination conclusion, the learned Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble -2025 (O&M) inadvertent typographical mistake. It was stated that at the time of issuance of the legal notice dated 25.11.2021 (Ex.C-3), the cheque number was dictated to the typist, however, the typist mistakenly mentioned the date “11.10.2021” instead of mentioning the cheque No. 470079. Thereafter, when the complaint was typed, the typist copied the contents of the notice and only changed certain words, as a result of which the cheque number again remained unmen further submitted that the said omission occurred due to a typographical error and was neither intentional nor wilful. It was also pointed out that while tendering the documents during evidence, the original cheque bearing N been exhibited as Ex.C-1. On these grounds, the complainant sought permission to amend the complaint and the examination-in-chief affidavit by mentioning cheque No.470079 in the fourth line of paragraph No.2 on page No.1 of the complai also sought deletion of the words “complainant in the” appearing in the second line of paragraph No.2 and in the legal notice exhibit C3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, while deciding the application, observed that upon perusal of the complaint as well as the affidavit -in-chief of the complainant, the cheque number had not been mentioned and instead the date of the cheque i.e. 11.10.2021 had been mentioned. The learned Magistrate further took into considera bearing No. 470079 dated 11.10.2021 had already been placed on record and exhibited, and therefore the mistake appeared to be inadvertent in nature. The Court also noticed that the complainant had not yet been cross no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the correction in the complaint and the affidavit of examination-in-chief was permitted. conclusion, the learned Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble -2- inadvertent typographical mistake. It was stated that at the time of issuance of the 3), the cheque number was dictated to the mentioned the date “11.10.2021” instead of mentioning the cheque No. 470079. Thereafter, when the complaint was typed, the typist copied the contents of the notice and only changed certain words, as a result of which the cheque number again remained unmentioned in the complaint. It was further submitted that the said omission occurred due to a typographical error and lful. It was also pointed out that while tendering the documents during evidence, the original cheque bearing No.470079 had already 1. On these grounds, the complainant sought permission to chief affidavit by mentioning cheque No.470079 in the fourth line of paragraph No.2 on page No.1 of the complaint and also sought deletion of the words “complainant in the” appearing in the second line of paragraph No.2 and in the legal notice exhibit C3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, while deciding perusal of the complaint as well as the affidavit chief of the complainant, the cheque number had not been mentioned and instead the date of the cheque i.e. 11.10.2021 had been mentioned. The learned Magistrate further took into consideration that the original cheque bearing No. 470079 dated 11.10.2021 had already been placed on record and exhibited, and therefore the mistake appeared to be inadvertent in nature. The Court also noticed that the complainant had not yet been cross-examined and thus no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the correction in the complaint and chief was permitted. While arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble inadvertent typographical mistake. It was stated that at the time of issuance of the 3), the cheque number was dictated to the mentioned the date “11.10.2021” instead of mentioning the cheque No. 470079. Thereafter, when the complaint was typed, the typist copied the contents of the notice and only changed certain words, as a result It was further submitted that the said omission occurred due to a typographical error and lful. It was also pointed out that while tendering the o.470079 had already 1. On these grounds, the complainant sought permission to chief affidavit by mentioning cheque nt and also sought deletion of the words “complainant in the” appearing in the second line The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, while deciding perusal of the complaint as well as the affidavit chief of the complainant, the cheque number had not been mentioned and instead the date of the cheque i.e. 11.10.2021 had been mentioned. tion that the original cheque bearing No. 470079 dated 11.10.2021 had already been placed on record and exhibited, and therefore the mistake appeared to be inadvertent in nature. The nd thus no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the correction in the complaint and While arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612- Supreme Court another, 2025 INSC 899 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended even after taking cognizance and that the primary consideration accused. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Kakrala Trading Co. & others an unintentional typographical mistake regarding the cheque corrected by way of amendment in the complaint. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning and relying upon the above mentioned precedents, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the amendment sought was only to rectify change the nature of the case. Accordingly, the application moved by the complainant for amendment of the complaint as well as the affidavit of examination-in- 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly allowed the amendment sought by the complainant at a h the complainant had already tendered her affidavit of examination petitioner had exercised his right of cross Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that the le recorded an erroneous factual finding that the complainant was yet to be cross examined, whereas in fact the complainant had already been cross 04.03.2024, therefore the premise on which the amendment was allowed is factually incorrect. It has also been argued that the amendment sought is not a mere -2025 (O&M) urt in Bansal Milk Chilling Center v. Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. & another, 2025 INSC 899, wherein it was held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended even after taking cognizance and that the primary consideration is that no prejudice should be caused to the accused. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Kakrala Trading Co. & others 2023 NCPHHC 101169 an unintentional typographical mistake regarding the cheque corrected by way of amendment in the complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning and relying upon the above mentioned precedents, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the amendment sought was only to rectify a typographical mistake and would not change the nature of the case. Accordingly, the application moved by the complainant for amendment of the complaint as well as the affidavit of -chief of CW-1 was allowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly allowed the amendment sought by the complainant at a h the complainant had already tendered her affidavit of examination petitioner had exercised his right of cross-examination under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that the le recorded an erroneous factual finding that the complainant was yet to be cross examined, whereas in fact the complainant had already been cross 04.03.2024, therefore the premise on which the amendment was allowed is orrect. It has also been argued that the amendment sought is not a mere -3- in Bansal Milk Chilling Center v. Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. & , wherein it was held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended even after taking cognizance is that no prejudice should be caused to the accused. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Rameshwar Dass v. M/s 2023 NCPHHC 101169, wherein it was held that an unintentional typographical mistake regarding the cheque number can be corrected by way of amendment in the complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning and relying upon the above mentioned precedents, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a typographical mistake and would not change the nature of the case. Accordingly, the application moved by the complainant for amendment of the complaint as well as the affidavit of order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly allowed the amendment sought by the complainant at a highly belated stage after the complainant had already tendered her affidavit of examination-in-chief and the examination under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that the learned JMIC has recorded an erroneous factual finding that the complainant was yet to be cross examined, whereas in fact the complainant had already been cross-examined on 04.03.2024, therefore the premise on which the amendment was allowed is orrect. It has also been argued that the amendment sought is not a mere in Bansal Milk Chilling Center v. Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. & , wherein it was held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be amended even after taking cognizance is that no prejudice should be caused to the Rameshwar Dass v. M/s , wherein it was held that number can be On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning and relying upon the above- mentioned precedents, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a typographical mistake and would not change the nature of the case. Accordingly, the application moved by the complainant for amendment of the complaint as well as the affidavit of order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly ighly belated stage after chief and the examination under Section 145(2) of the arned JMIC has recorded an erroneous factual finding that the complainant was yet to be cross- examined on 04.03.2024, therefore the premise on which the amendment was allowed is orrect. It has also been argued that the amendment sought is not a mere TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612- clerical or typographical correction but amounts to curing a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case, as mentioning the cheque number is a foundational ingredient of a complaint und the petitioner, permitting such amendment after the complainant has already entered the witness box enables the complainant to improve the case and fill up gaps in the pleadings and evidence, w proceedings. It is further contended that the impugned order overlooks the prejudice caused to the accused who had structured his defence on the basis of the original complaint, statutory notice and affidavit on record, an suffers from non 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the l has been contended that the amendment sought by the complainant was only to correct an inadvertent typographical omission regarding the cheque number and the same does not alter the nature of the complai has further submitted that the original cheque bearing the relevant number was already placed on record and exhibited as Ex.C merely clarifies the existing record. It is thus argued that the rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the amendment and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present pe 8. No doubt, the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that the complainant was yet to be cross -2025 (O&M) clerical or typographical correction but amounts to curing a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case, as mentioning the cheque number is a foundational ingredient of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, permitting such amendment after the complainant has already entered the witness box enables the complainant to improve the case and fill up gaps in the pleadings and evidence, which is impermissible in criminal proceedings. It is further contended that the impugned order overlooks the prejudice caused to the accused who had structured his defence on the basis of the original complaint, statutory notice and affidavit on record, an suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara. It has been contended that the amendment sought by the complainant was only to correct an inadvertent typographical omission regarding the cheque number and the same does not alter the nature of the complai has further submitted that the original cheque bearing the relevant number was already placed on record and exhibited as Ex.C merely clarifies the existing record. It is thus argued that the rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the amendment and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present pe No doubt, the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that the complainant was yet to be cross-examined by the accused. The record -4- clerical or typographical correction but amounts to curing a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case, as mentioning the cheque number is a foundational ingredient er Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, permitting such amendment after the complainant has already entered the witness box enables the complainant to improve the case and fill up hich is impermissible in criminal proceedings. It is further contended that the impugned order overlooks the prejudice caused to the accused who had structured his defence on the basis of the original complaint, statutory notice and affidavit on record, and thus the order application of mind and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the earned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara. It has been contended that the amendment sought by the complainant was only to correct an inadvertent typographical omission regarding the cheque number and the same does not alter the nature of the complaint in any manner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the original cheque bearing the relevant number was already placed on record and exhibited as Ex.C-1, and therefore the amendment merely clarifies the existing record. It is thus argued that the learned Magistrate has rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the amendment and the present petition Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. No doubt, the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order examined by the accused. The record clerical or typographical correction but amounts to curing a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case, as mentioning the cheque number is a foundational ingredient er Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, permitting such amendment after the complainant has already entered the witness box enables the complainant to improve the case and fill up hich is impermissible in criminal proceedings. It is further contended that the impugned order overlooks the prejudice caused to the accused who had structured his defence on the basis of the d thus the order On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the earned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phagwara. It has been contended that the amendment sought by the complainant was only to correct an inadvertent typographical omission regarding the cheque number and nt in any manner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the original cheque bearing the relevant number was 1, and therefore the amendment learned Magistrate has rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the amendment and the present petition Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the No doubt, the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order examined by the accused. The record TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612- would show that the complainant had already been cross However, such incor conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The cheque in question was already on record and had been exhibited as Ex.C was only with regard to mentioning of complainant, remained omitted due to inadvertence while drafting the complaint and the affidavit of examination never in dispute and the document was already part of merely permitting the complainant to mention the cheque number in the complaint and affidavit cannot be said to cause any real prejudice to the petitioner nor can it be treated as permitting the complainant to change the natu 9. The contention of the petitioner that the amendment amounts to filling up a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case also does not merit acceptance. The amendment allowed by the learned Magistrate is only in the nature of rectifying a inadvertent omission and does not introduce any new cause of action or alter the basic ingredients of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in (supra) has held that correction of cheque numbers in the complaint can be permitted where the mistake occurred due to a typographical error and such correction does not change the nature of the complaint. In the said case, even the wrong cheque numbers mentioned The present case stands on a still better footing inasmuch as the cheque itself was already on record as Ex.C places in the complaint and affidavit du -2025 (O&M) would show that the complainant had already been cross However, such incorrect factual observation does not materially affect the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The cheque in question was already on record and had been exhibited as Ex.C was only with regard to mentioning of the cheque number which, according to the complainant, remained omitted due to inadvertence while drafting the complaint and the affidavit of examination-in-chief. The identity of the cheque itself was never in dispute and the document was already part of merely permitting the complainant to mention the cheque number in the complaint and affidavit cannot be said to cause any real prejudice to the petitioner nor can it be treated as permitting the complainant to change the natu The contention of the petitioner that the amendment amounts to filling up a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case also does not merit acceptance. The amendment allowed by the learned Magistrate is only in the nature of rectifying a inadvertent omission and does not introduce any new cause of action or alter the basic ingredients of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in has held that correction of cheque numbers in the complaint can be permitted where the mistake occurred due to a typographical error and such correction does not change the nature of the complaint. In the said case, even the wrong cheque numbers mentioned in the complaint were permitted to be corrected. The present case stands on a still better footing inasmuch as the cheque itself was already on record as Ex.C-1 and only its number could not be mentioned at certain places in the complaint and affidavit due to inadvertence. -5- would show that the complainant had already been cross-examined on 04.03.2024. rect factual observation does not materially affect the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The cheque in question was already on record and had been exhibited as Ex.C-1, and the amendment sought the cheque number which, according to the complainant, remained omitted due to inadvertence while drafting the complaint chief. The identity of the cheque itself was never in dispute and the document was already part of the record. Therefore, merely permitting the complainant to mention the cheque number in the complaint and affidavit cannot be said to cause any real prejudice to the petitioner-accused nor can it be treated as permitting the complainant to change the nature of the case. The contention of the petitioner that the amendment amounts to filling up a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case also does not merit acceptance. The amendment allowed by the learned Magistrate is only in the nature of rectifying a inadvertent omission and does not introduce any new cause of action or alter the basic ingredients of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case of Rameshwar Dass has held that correction of cheque numbers in the complaint can be permitted where the mistake occurred due to a typographical error and such correction does not change the nature of the complaint. In the said case, even the in the complaint were permitted to be corrected. The present case stands on a still better footing inasmuch as the cheque itself was 1 and only its number could not be mentioned at certain e to inadvertence. examined on 04.03.2024. rect factual observation does not materially affect the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The cheque in question was 1, and the amendment sought the cheque number which, according to the complainant, remained omitted due to inadvertence while drafting the complaint chief. The identity of the cheque itself was the record. Therefore, merely permitting the complainant to mention the cheque number in the complaint accused re of the case. The contention of the petitioner that the amendment amounts to filling up a substantive lacuna in the prosecution case also does not merit acceptance. The amendment allowed by the learned Magistrate is only in the nature of rectifying an inadvertent omission and does not introduce any new cause of action or alter the basic ingredients of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Rameshwar Dass has held that correction of cheque numbers in the complaint can be permitted where the mistake occurred due to a typographical error and such correction does not change the nature of the complaint. In the said case, even the in the complaint were permitted to be corrected. The present case stands on a still better footing inasmuch as the cheque itself was 1 and only its number could not be mentioned at certain TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72612- 10. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in accordance with law and the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 13, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in accordance with law and the impugned 02.12.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or l error warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in accordance with law and the impugned does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or l error warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in accordance with law and the impugned does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or l error warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document