Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that had disallowed an amendment to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court held that the proposed amendment—correcting a typographical error regarding the nature of the product supplied—was a curable irregularity, which did not prejudice the accused. It restored the trial court’s decision permitting the amendment and directed the trial to proceed expeditiously. Importantly, the Court clarified that even after cognizance is taken, a complaint can be amended, provided the amendment does not alter the core nature of the complaint or cause prejudice to the accused.
Facts
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in April 2022 alleging that the respondents issued three cheques totaling ₹14 lakhs, which were dishonoured. The cheques were issued towards the purchase of goods. However, the complaint and preceding legal notice erroneously stated that the respondents purchased “Desi Ghee (milk products),” whereas the actual product supplied was “milk.”
Before cross-examination of the complainant commenced, the appellant filed an amendment application to correct this typographical error. The trial court allowed the amendment, finding it to be a simple mistake that would not prejudice the accused, as evidence had not yet been recorded.
The respondents challenged this order under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They argued that the amendment altered the nature of the complaint, was not a typographical error, and was an attempt to escape liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 since GST is not leviable on milk. The High Court accepted these arguments and reversed the trial court’s order.
Issues
- Whether a criminal court has the power to allow an amendment to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after cognizance is taken?
- Whether the proposed amendment in this case altered the nature and character of the original complaint or was merely a typographical correction?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the amendment was necessitated due to an inadvertent typographical error in describing the product. They argued that the respondents would not suffer any prejudice as the amendment was sought at an early stage—before cross-examination of the complainant. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, it was submitted that courts are empowered to allow amendments that cure legal infirmities if no prejudice is caused.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents maintained that the amendment was not merely formal but substantial, as it changed the entire nature of the complaint. They submitted that the complaint and legal notice consistently stated the supply of Desi Ghee (milk products), and altering that to “milk” amounted to revising the foundation of the case. They further argued that the amendment was being used as a device to avoid GST liability, since milk is exempt from GST. They sought to distinguish the precedent in S.R. Sukumar, claiming it applied only to pre-cognizance amendments.
Analysis of the Law
The Court delved into the principles laid down in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram [(2015) 9 SCC 609], which clarified that even in the absence of an express statutory provision, courts may permit amendments to criminal complaints if the amendment cures a formal defect and does not prejudice the accused.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that S.R. Sukumar applied only to pre-cognizance scenarios, observing that the ruling and its reliance on U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684] demonstrated that amendments post-cognizance are permissible in appropriate cases.
It further referred to Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari [(2016) 11 SCC 774], reiterating that criminal courts are not powerless and may allow amendments even after the trial has commenced, so long as they do not result in injustice.
The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in Munish Kumar Gupta v. Mittal Trading Co. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1732], where the amendment was disallowed because it changed the date of the cheque—a factor materially affecting the limitation period for notice and the existence of funds. In contrast, the present case concerned only the description of goods supplied, not a legal requirement or a critical timeline.
Precedent Analysis
- S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram – Held that amendments to criminal complaints are permissible if they cure formal defects and do not prejudice the accused.
- U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery – Emphasized that technical defects can be cured to avoid miscarriage of justice; amendment allowed to substitute the name of the company.
- Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari – Reiterated the principle that courts are empowered to permit amendments in criminal complaints in appropriate circumstances.
- Munish Kumar Gupta v. Mittal Trading Co. – Disallowed amendment because it concerned an essential date affecting legal compliance under Section 138.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that the key consideration in allowing amendments is whether the change causes prejudice to the accused. It observed that the complainant’s evidence was not complete and no substantial progress had occurred in the trial. The amendment concerned a clerical mistake—substituting “Desi Ghee” with “milk”—which did not affect the underlying liability or change the essential nature of the complaint.
It held that:
“It was a curable irregularity which the Trial Court rightly addressed by allowing the amendment. It could not be said that by allowing the amendment at a stage when the evidence of the complainant was incomplete, failure of justice would occasion.”
The Court also criticized the High Court for entering into questions of GST applicability, which it considered irrelevant to the issue of amendment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order, and restored the trial court’s order permitting amendment of the complaint. It directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously and clarified that both parties may apply for recall of witnesses, if necessary.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural defects in criminal complaints can be corrected even after cognizance is taken, as long as the accused is not prejudiced. It reiterates that justice cannot be denied on mere technicalities and that courts must prioritize substantive justice. The ruling provides clarity for litigants and courts handling dishonoured cheque matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and also offers significant guidance on the application of criminal procedure law to private complaints.
Summary of Cases Referred
- S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609 – Allowed amendment in a defamation complaint as long as no prejudice is caused.
- U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery (1987) 3 SCC 684 – Defect in the complaint cured by allowing substitution of company name; emphasized substantial justice.
- Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari (2016) 11 SCC 774 – Held that criminal courts may allow amendments when appropriate.
- Munish Kumar Gupta v. Mittal Trading Co. (2024 SCC OnLine 1732) – Amendment disallowed where it affected limitation and notice timelines under NI Act.
FAQs
1. Can a criminal complaint be amended after the court has taken cognizance of the matter?
Yes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts can allow amendments to criminal complaints even after cognizance is taken, provided the amendment does not cause prejudice to the accused or alter the nature of the complaint.
2. What was the nature of the amendment allowed in this case?
The amendment involved correcting the product description from “Desi Ghee” to “milk,” which was claimed to be a typographical error. The Court found this to be a curable mistake that did not prejudice the accused.
3. Is the issue of Goods and Services Tax (GST) relevant to criminal proceedings under Section 138?
No. The Court held that GST concerns are extraneous to the question of amendment in a criminal complaint and fall within the domain of tax authorities, not the criminal court.