CGHC010126472025 2026:CGHC:39304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1204 of 2025 1 - Smt. Madhubala Singh W/o Virendra Pratap Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o Brahmadeep Vidhyut Nagar, Maharaja Chowk, Padmnabh Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.(Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Yogesh Sahu S/o Loknath Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Akanksha Ashish Nagar, Ward No. 63, Civic Centre, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Accused) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Siddarth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the lerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khairagarh, District – Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, C.G. in Criminal Case (Complaint) No. 175/2023 whereby the petitioner’s application for amendment was rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is proprietor of Escort Farmtrack in the name and style of ‘Madhu Tractors’. During the business transactions on 11.04.2021, it was KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.09.09 12:22:45 +0530 agreed that the respondent will pay an amount of Rs. 3,47,000/- to the appellant by 15.09.2021. Even after expiry of the said date the respondent did not pay the amount. After so many requests, he issued cheque No. 039894 dated 22.11.2022 for amount of Rs. 3,99,000/-. The appellant deposited the cheque to her bank account maintained in Axis Bank on 23.11.2022 which got dishonored and returned with the endorsement. She again deposited the cheque on 14.12.2022, however, the cheque again got dishonoured and returned with endorsement on 15.12.2022. She sent legal notice to the respondent on 10.01.2023 still he did not pay the amount, which necessitated her to file the present complaint. On 07.02.2025 the appellant filed amendment application contending that she wanted to amend registration No. CG 09 JD 6560 and substitute ‘D’ with ‘B’ as the correct the vehicle number is CG 09 JB 6560. The same was objected by the respondent. Learned trial Court considering the submission made by both the parties, rejected the application vide the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no rider in allowing the amendment in the complainant under 138 of the N.I. Act in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunnad Raghurav {(2015) 9 SCC 609} and would pray for allowing the present Cr.M.P. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if the application is allowed, it will adversely affect the right of the respondent and it will be presumed that the respondent has not examined the appellant on the said vehicle number, therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the present Cr.M.P. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the rival submission put by the learned counsel for the parties, considering the law on the subject and also considering the fact the said amendment will not change the nature of the case, the present Cr.M.P. is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be allowed to amend the vehicle number in the application under 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. Further considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that if the amendment is allowed and an opportunity is not provided to the respondent to examine, that may adversely affect his defence, it is directed further directed that if the application is allowed and amendment is incorporated, the respondent shall be provided an opportunity to cross examine the witness on this aspect only. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore