- 1 - criwp367.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 957 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 367 OF 2024 Dnyandeo Vasant Vispute ….Petitioner VERSUS Motiram Gangadhar Karhale & another …..Respondents Ms. R. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State. Ms. S. G. Mapari, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Trial Court in SCC No. 7119/2018 whereby application Exhibit 14 came to be allowed by passing order dated 12.10.2023. Exception was raised to this order before the Sessions Court by filing revision, unsuccessfully. Hence, this petition. 2. The facts as they appear from the record indicate that Respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act bearing SCC No. 7119/2018. This complaint came to be filed on 29.11.2018 whereas verification was recorded on 25.02.2019. After issuance of process, plea of the accused/petitioner - 2 - criwp367.24.odt herein came to be recorded and evidence of complainant was over by 03.03.2022. It is thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. When the matter was postponed for arguments, an order came to be passed below Exhibit 14 on 12.10.2023 though the application was filed on record on 08.01.2020. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that even if the power of the Trial Court to permit amendment in appropriate case is accepted, it is required to be seen as to whether any prejudice is caused to the accused and in case such prejudice is caused, amendment is not permissible. To support her submissions, she drew attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the complainant conducted on behalf of the accused. According to her, a specific question was posed to the complainant in the cross- examination that the cheque in question is not issued individually in his name. It is her submission that having regard to the said specific plea raised by accused, it was not open for the Trial Court to permit the amendment which has caused prejudice to the accused. To support her submission, she placed reliance on judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. - 3 - criwp367.24.odt Khan and another, 2011 AIR SCW 1733 and Munish Kumar Gupta vs. M/s Mittal Trading Company (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3040/2023). 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent supported the impugned order. It is her contention that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused as the amendment only pertains to the fact that the complainant is the proprietor of Shraddha Apperal, Jalgaon. 5. There is no dispute about the preposition sought to be canvassed before this Court that in appropriate case and at appropriate stage of the proceeding, amendment to the complaint would be permissible. What is required to be seen is as to whether any prejudice has been caused or is likely to cause to the accused by such amendment. 6. Cross-examination of the complainant indicates that the accused does not dispute the factum of issuance of cheque to the Petitioner. However, in the cross-examination, he is suggested that individually the complainant is not the payee. In the light of this fact, if amendment sought is considered, the same is with regard to - 4 - criwp367.24.odt the complainant being proprietor of Shraddha Apperal, Jalgaon. Needless to say that there is no independent legal entity insofar as proprietory firm is concerned than proprietor himself, unlke in case of partnership firm or a company. Thus, it was always open for the complainant to substantiate that accused is the proprietor of the said firm. Once it is allowed to prove so, there is no question of any prejudice being caused to the accused by permitting such amendment even at the stage of arguments. Needless to say that even at this stage, the burden would be on the complainant to prove that he is the sole proprietor of the firm. The accused in that case would get a chance to rebut the same. 7. As far as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Milind Chandurkar (supra) is concerned, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment has observed that it would be open for the party to prove/substantiate that he is the sole proprietor of the firm. Insofar as judgment in case of Munish Gupta (supra) is concerned, it is on different point and in altogether different set of facts. - 5 - criwp367.24.odt 8. Having regard to above discussion, and considering the facts of the case, this Court finds no perversity in the orders impugned. In the result, petition stands dismissed. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb