IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.653 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee …….Petitioner Versus M/S Mohan Lal and Sons … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is complainant in a proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “Act”) is aggrieved of order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, whereby an application for correction in the memo of parties came to be dismissed, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and allow the application for correction. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kiran Lata Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to the respondent-accused (in short “accused”) in case prayer for correction in the memo of parties is 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accepted. While referring to application, copy whereof has not been placed on record, but was made available during the proceedings of the case, Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that very innocuous prayer has been made for correcting the memo of parties. She states that inadvertently accused has been arrayed in the capacity of proprietor of firm M/s Mohan Lal & Sons (in short “firm”), whereas aforesaid person ought to have been arrayed as partner of the firm. She states that since afore firm has two partners and cheque has been issued by one of the partners namely Sh. Bhagat Ram, he was required to be impleaded as a partner of the firm and not as its proprietor. Since aforesaid omission on the part of the petitioner came to be noticed at the time of framing of notice of accusation, the petitioner moved an application seeking correction of the same; but the aforesaid application was erroneously rejected by the learned Court. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order passed by Court below, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. Careful perusal of complaint clearly reveals that there is no specific averment that cheque in question was issued by firm, which is claimed to be partnership firm. There is no mention that afore firm is a partnership firm, rather it is stated in the complaint that respondent- 3 accused i.e. Bhagat Ram, proprietor of the firm issued cheque bearing No.514414 dated 29.09.2018 amounting to Rs.1,79,655/- drawn at Punjab National Bank, Branch at Sainj, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, however, the same was returned back on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the respondent-accused. Since there is no specific averment contained in the complaint that cheque in question was issued by the partnership firm and same was signed by Mr. Bhagat Ram, being one of the partners of the firm, no fruitful purpose would be otherwise served in case petitioner is permitted to carry out amendment/correction in the memo of parties. In the application filed for correction/amendment, prayer has been made to insert words/expressions “through its partners” (1) Sh. Mohan Lal, S/o Sh. Beli Ram, (2) Sh. Bhagat Ram, S/o Sh. Lanthu Ram and Sons. Even in afore application, no reason has been assigned for carrying out aforesaid amendment, rather it has been averred in the application that during pendency of the case, the complainant noticed that name of the accused was shown as ‘M/s Mohan Lal & Sons through its proprietor Sh. Bhagat Ram, S/o Shl. Lanthu Ram, whereas afore firm is being run by two partners and both the parties are liable to be impleaded in the memo of parties. To substantiate aforesaid claim, partnership deed has also been adduced on record. 4 4. Since there is inherent defect in the complaint, as noticed hereinabove, coupled with the fact that there is no mention, if any, in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act with regard to issuance of cheque by partnership firm as well as necessity to implead Bhagat Ram as partner of the partnership firm, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while rejecting the application. Even if complainant is permitted to carry out correction in the memo of parties, same may not be of much help for the reason that there are no required pleadings in the complaint with regard to partnership firm as well as partners in the firm. Complainant ought to have specifically pleaded in the complaint that cheque in question was issued by firm under the signatures of partner, but as has been noticed hereinabove, no such plea has been made in the complaint, rather at first instance, an attempt came to be made at the behest of the complainant to prove that cheque in question was issued by Bhagat Ram being proprietor of the firm named hereinabove. 5. Consequently, In view of the discussed made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 16, 2026 (sunil)