A single judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma has allowed a complainant to amend his complain to the extent of changing the description of other parties.
Facts
A complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stood instituted as on 29th February 2016, by Mr. Bhupendra Singh as against Mr. Kaushal Kumar son of Mr. Lalchand. On taking cognizance to it, the order was passed on 3rd March 2016. During the course of pendency of the proceedings, the applicant Bhupendra Singh had filed an Amendment Applicatio, praying for that the opposite party to the complaint proceedings, who has been described as Kaushal Kumar, he may be permitted to include in his description as to be Manoj Kumar son of Gainda Lal, as it is alleged that Kaushal Kumar engages himself in commission of offences by changing name and hence the said amendment was required to be carried. The application for amendment was allowed by the lower court.
The said amendment order dated 17th October 2019 has been put to challenge by filing the present C482 Application on 10th November 2022, which has been argued that the present applicant could not get the knowledge of the order, for the reason being, that since he was languishing in jail for his alleged involvement in commission of offences under Section 302/120-B of IPC.
Observations
Apart from the fact that there is a delayed challenge and whatsoever the reason may be contributing to the delay, but considering the nature of amendment, which is being sought in 138 proceedings, by filing an amendment on 15th May 2019, was pertaining to the description of the opposite party to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, by describing him with an additional name of ‘Manoj Kumar’ son of Gainda Lal, as it has been averred that the respondent to the complaint proceedings had been commissioning offences by changing his name.
Merely change of name is not by way of a substitution to the complaint proceeding, but only by way of an addition. It does not have any material bearing, which could prejudice the rights of the applicant at this stage, or effect merits of the case, because all contentions qua the amendment which has been carried on 18th October 2019, would still be left open for the applicant to be argued at the stage when 138 Application itself is addressed on merits.
Decision
The Application was dismissed with all liberties left open to be contended before the trial court.
Case: Manoj Kumar Alias Annu Gangwar v Bhupendra Singh and Another
Citation: C-482 Application No. 2028 of 2022
Date: 14.11.2022
Coram: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
