- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10442 CRL.P No. 1606 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5432 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1606 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5432 OF 2024 IN CRL.P No. 1606/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. N. PREMA, W/O SRI. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, RING ROAD, NAGADEVANAHALLI, JNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIDHAR K.L, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. UMESH T .C. S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 291, DATTHATREYA TEMPLE ROAD, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, THAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI THAVAREKERE, BENGALURU - 562 130. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANJAN KUMAR B.N, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 19.01.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI IN C.C.NO.2742/2021 IN Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10442 CRL.P No. 1606 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5432 of 2024 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 309 OF CR.P.C., WHEREIN THE FURTHER CROSS OF PW-1 IS TAKEN AS NIL AND DIRECTING TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONDUCT FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PW.1 AS PRAYED THEREIN. IN CRL.P NO. 5432/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. N. PREMA, W/O SRI. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDGOLLARAHATTI, RING ROAD, NAGADEVANAHALLI, JNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBALI, BANGALORE - 560 056. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RADHAKRISHNA M, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SRIDHAR K.L, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. UMESH T.C, S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.N. 291, DATTHATREYA TEMPLE ROAD, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, THAVAREKERE POST AND HOBALI, THAVAREKERE, BANGALORE - 562 130. ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 22.11.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI IN C.C.NO.2742/2021 IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT SEEKING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE LEGAL NOTICE, COMPLAINT COPY AND EVIDENCE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10442 CRL.P No. 1606 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5432 of 2024 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER In Crl.P.No.1606/2024 1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is before this Court challenging the order passed by the trial court, wherein the application for amendment/correction of the complaint was allowed. 2. In the complaint and in the legal notice, it was stated that a sum of Rs.4,75,000 out of Rs.9,50,000 was transferred to the account of the accused through RTGS dated 24.01.2021. However, it was established that the said amount was actually transferred via RTGS on 24.01.2020. Consequently, the complainant filed an application for the amendment of the complaint. The trial court allowed the application, holding that the documents annexed to the complaint clearly indicated that Rs.4,75,000 was transferred on 24.01.2020 rather than on 24.01.2021. The trial court’s order is thus correct, and no illegality is found; moreover, no prejudice is caused to the accused. In Crl.P.No.5432/2024 3. It is further recorded that the application for amendment was allowed when the matter was set for the further cross-examination of P.W.1. However, the petitioner did not opt to file an application for further cross-examination of P.W.1; such an application was submitted only - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10442 CRL.P No. 1606 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5432 of 2024 when the matter was set for defense evidence. The petitioner now intends to cross-examine P.W.1 further in relation to the amendment of the date of transfer via RTGS. Since the amendment was allowed solely on the ground of a typographical error in the date of transfer, no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is not permitted additional cross-examination on that issue. 4. In view of the above observations, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 5. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the next date of hearing. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83 CT: BHK