[2025:RJ-JP:10794] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 594/2024 Apporv Bhatnagar Son Of Shri Alok Bhatnagar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Aakshay, Indraprastha Nagar, Balupura Road, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Complainant-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. …. Respondent 2. Gyan Singh Rawat Son Of Shri Mangi Lal Rawat, Resident Of 63/39, Nichali Guwadi, Makhupura, Ajmer. ----Accused-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anima Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Subham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/03/2025 This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.I. Act Cases) No.4, Ajmer, in Criminal Case No. 571/2022, whereby the application filed by the complainant-petitioner seeking amendment/correction in the complaint as regards the amount details was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional District And Section Sessions Judge No.5, Ajmer in Criminal Revision Petition No. 29/2023 (142/2023), whereby the revision petition filed against the order dated 21.10.2022 was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:10794] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-594/2024] Counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 for a cheque bearing No. 000007 for an amount of Rs.4,75,000/-. On haing noticed a typographical mistake, the complainant filed an application seeking correction/modification in the complaint as regard the amount of the disputed cheque i.e. Rs.4,75,000/- in place of Rs.4,15,000/-, as mentioned in the complaint. The learned trial Court dismissed the application without considering the fact that the typographical mistake may frustrate the complaint filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the correction/modification in the complaint as regards the amount of cheque will in no manner adversely affect the case of the accused respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observation made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Mahi International Vs. State of Raj. And anr.: S.B. Cr. Misc. (Petition) No.244/2018 decided on 03.05.2019. Notice was issued to the said respondent vide order dated 21.02.2024 and as per the office report, service was also effected upon him, however, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the accused respondent. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record. As per the facts on record, a complaint was filed by the petitioner against the accused respondent as regards the payment for which the accused respondent had issued a cheque No. 000007 of an amount of Rs.4,75,000/-. When the said cheque was regarded as dishonoured by the Bank by reason of insufficient [2025:RJ-JP:10794] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-594/2024] amount in the Bank Account of the person issuing the cheque, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. However, the complainant petitioner has mentioned a cheque amount Rs.4,15,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner has placed the copy of the disputed cheque and the photostat copy of the cheque clearly speaks that the cheque No. 000007 is for an amount of Rs.4,75,0000/- as has been specifically mentioned in words. Even though, there is a specific provision under the Cr.P.C. as regards seeking amendment in the complaint, if there is any, so as to impart justice and when dispute came to the notice of the Court that the correction/modification is being sought in regard to a fact which can be an inadvertently typographical mistake as is clearly evident from the copy of the cheque itself, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Mahi International (supra) observed as under: “9. As far as prayer for amendment is concerned, Apex Court in “S.R. Sukumar vs. Sunaad Raghuram” (supra) has held that although there is no specific provision in Criminal Procedure Code to amend a complaint or a petition filed under Cr.P.C. if amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment such infirmity can be cured. 10. The amendment sought for by the respondent was change of Bank name from UCO Bank, Branch Johari Bazar to SBBJ Bank, Branch Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Amendment was also sought with regard to the typographical errors in the dates mentioned in the complaint. Court below has allowed the application for amendment of the complaint. Admittedly, from the cheque, return memo which are available on record the bank details and the date of dishonour can be ascertained. Any typographical error can be corrected and the Court below has not committed illegality in allowing the application filed by the complainant for amendment of the complaint. To that extent, I do not find any force in the present miscellaneous petition. [2025:RJ-JP:10794] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-594/2024] 11. As far as rejection of application for permanent exemption is concerned, in view of the fact that petitioner is resident of Goa. The Apex Court in “Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.& Ors.” (supra) while dealing with a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act held that if personal appearance may result in enormous hardship and cost to an accused, the Court may dispense with his personal attendance either throughout or at any particular stage of the proceedings, after taking an undertaking from him that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in Court and he would have no objection in taking evidence in his absence. 12. Apex Court has further held that main concern of the Court is administration of criminal justice and for that purpose proceedings should register progress.” In the facts of the case as stated above, this court deems appropriate to exercise the inherent jurisdiction vested in it. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.10.2022 and 01.11.2023 passed by the courts below are quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for amendment/correction in the complaint is allowed as under: “The amount of the cheque in dispute as mentioned in complaint i.e. Rs.4,15,000/- be allowed to be corrected as Rs.4,75,000/-. The petitioner is allowed fifteen days time to amend/correct the complaint as observed above and amended complaint to be extent above be filed within given time.” (GANESH RAM MEENA),J pcg/201