[2025:RJ-JP:43377] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6281/2015 Smt. Vinita Marshal Wife Of Shri Semvel Mesy, R/o Near ICE Factory, House Of Vishal Marshal, Nadi Mohalla, Bijaynagar, P.S. Halka Bijay Nagar, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer Raj. ----Accused/Petitioner Versus Shiv Prasad Sharma Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Kekri Road Raj Nagar Bijaynagar, P.S. Halka Bijaynagar Tehsil Masuda District Ajmer Raj. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6282/2015 Smt Vinita Marshal W/o Shri Semvel Mesy, R/o near ICE Factory, House of Vishal Marshal, Nadi Mohalla, Bijaynagar, P.S. Halka Bijay Nagar, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Shiv Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Mohal Lal Sharma, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Kekri Road (Raj Nagar) Bijaynagar, P.S. Halka Bijaynagar Tehsil Masuda Distrct Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/10/2025 1. In both these criminal misc. petitions, almost common facts and questions are involved hence, with the consent of the parties, arguments were heard together and these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. [2025:RJ-JP:43377] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6281/2015] 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijaynagar, District Ajmer (Raj.) whereby, permission has been granted to file fresh affidavit in evidence. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of dishonour of cheque, one complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent-complainant before the learned Court below, in which cognizance was taken and after framing statement of charge, prosecution evidence was started. Accordingly, the complainant filed his own affidavit in evidence, which was taken on record and the matter was kept for cross-examination of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that instead of pressing the earlier affidavit in evidence on 29.05.2012, the petitioners filed an application mentioning therein that inadvertently, some clerical error has occurred in his affidavit therefore, permission may be granted to file amended affidavit. However, such application was not pressed by learned counsel for the complainant before the trial Court. Thereafter, another application was filed on 19.02.2013 for seeking permission to file amended affidavit, which was also withdrawn by the complainant on 02.07.2013. 5. Further the complainant again filed an application for taking on record the amended affidavit in evidence, which has been allowed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 28.08.2015. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned Court below suffers [2025:RJ-JP:43377] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6281/2015] from serious error of law and jurisdiction. Once, similar applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court, the subsequent application could not have been allowed and the fresh affidavit in evidence cannot be permitted to be taken on record. It is submitted that filing of fresh affidavit, which is contrary to the earlier affidavit in evidence filed by the petitioners, would prejudice the defence of the accused-petitioners and would also cause miscarriage of justice. 7. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent-complainant. 8. I have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Bare perusal of the impugned order dated 28.08.2015 reveals that the learned Court below has duly taken into account that the complainant had filed two complaints against the same accused-petitioners bearing Nos. 202/2010 and 204/2010 involving substantially similar facts. In both the cases, affidavits in evidence have been filed by the complainant, however, due to bonafide confusion and oversight of certain facts pertaining to one case were inadvertently mentioned in the affidavit of other and such errors were purely clerical and typographical in nature. 10. Rectification of such mistakes would not cause any prejudice whatsoever to the accused-petitioners. The learned Court below has rightly observed that mere typographical or clerical errors cannot disentitle the complainant from filing a fresh or corrected affidavit, particularly when no material or substantial change in the factual matrix is introduced thereby. Such rectification by way of fresh affidavit neither affects the defence of [2025:RJ-JP:43377] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6281/2015] accused-petitioners, nor alters the nature of allegation or charges levelled against them. 11. Petitioner has utterly failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material illegality in the impugned order. Hence, no case is made out to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, these criminal misc. petitions are hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/29-30