Fajlur Rahman vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1583 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Fajlur Rahman vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 30 July, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010106452023




                                                                   undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./462/2023

            FAJLUR RAHMAN
            S/O LATE FAJIR RAHMAN
            R/O ADAPATTY, JAJORI, P.S. AND P.O. JAJORI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-
            782142



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:MD. JAHIDUR RAHMAN
             S/O LATE SAMIR ALI
            R/O ADAPATTY
             JAJORI
             P.S. AND P.O.JAJORI
             DIST. NAGAON
            ASSAM
            PIN-78214

Advocate for the Petitioner   : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, MR R HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, U U KHAN (R-2),MR A AHMED (R-2)


                                    BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

                                          ORDER

Date : 30.07.2025

`The instant proceeding has arisen out of petition filed under Section 482 Page No.# 2/6

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter 'CrPC'). The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Criminal Revision No.09/2022, whereby the challenge of the petitioner to an earlier order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional CJM, Morigaon in connection with CR Case No. 493/2020 under Section 142/138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( hereinafter 'the Act').

2. The complainant filed complaint under section 138 of the Act with regard to alleged dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner/ accused for an amount mentioned as Rs.40,30,000/-and subsequently allowed to be amended as Rs.4,30,000/-in the complaint petition and in the evidence- on -affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2. Admittedly, the case is at the stage of evidence and cross- examination has not yet started.

3. Sri A. I. Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amendment allowing the complainant to replace the amount of the cheque in the complaint petition and evidence as stated above has caused him prejudice and adversely affected his defence leading him to challenge the same by way of criminal revision which was dismissed as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, he has come up before this court with a petition seeking invocation of the inherent powers under section 482 CrPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.R. Sukumar vs- S. Sunaad Raghuram reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609. In support of his contention another decision has been relied upon, being Subodh S. Salaskar vs- Jayprakash M.Shah & anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 3086. Interestingly, the aforesaid decision S.R. Sukumar (supra) has also been referred to by the learned Magistrate while passing the original order allowing the amendment.

Page No.# 3/6

5. On behalf of the complainant respondent, I have heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ahmed who submits that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned orders of both the courts and that revisional court has rightly upheld the order of the learned Magistrate allowing the amendment. The respondent's counsel has also relied upon S.R. Sukumar (supra) and taken the court through the relevant paragraphs.

6. I have perused the petition filed under section 482 CrPC, the impugned orders and other relevant portions of the case records, (scanned copy).

7. Upon perusing the judgment in S.R. Sukumar (supra) , I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that curable infirmities can be allowed to be corrected even in such criminal complaint matters, though there is no specific provision in the CrPC, for the same.

8. The respondent's counsel has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansal Milk Chilling Centre -vs- Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & anr in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15699 of 2024. On perusal of the said Judgment, I find that Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the Judgment of S.R. Sukumar (supra) and in paragraph-9, the court has clearly indicated that there is no such proposition laid down in S.R.Sukumar (supra) that such amendments cannot be allowed at a stage later than cognizance. In paragraph-2 itself, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the well settled principle that procedure is only a handmaided and not a mistress of justice.

9. Coming back to the instant case, I find that in the complaint petition, in paragraph-4 thereof the transactional amount between accused and the complainant is indicated as Rs.5 Lacs and subsequently, the accused petitioner is stated to have returned an amount of Rs.70,000/- and the remaining amount Page No.# 4/6

was Rs.4,30,000/-as stated in paragraph-5 of the complaint.

10. However, in paragraph-7, in the tabular chart, the cheque amount has been mentioned as Rs.40,30,000/-. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that said error also crept into the evidence -on -affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2. It is also submitted that legal notice indicated the amount of Rs.4,30,000/-.

11. Upon perusing the judgments cited at the Bar, there is no dispute that the proposition that though the statute is silent, but such amendments in such criminal complaint matters can also be allowed in the larger interest of justice and even post cognizance. However, it has to be seen that the amendment sought to be made is in the nature of a curable infirmity and would not cause prejudice to the accused.

12. Now, whether allowing the prayer for amendment in the instant case was justified on the part of the learned courts below has to be seen and adjudicated. As already referred to above, I find that the apparent errors sought to be corrected have their foundation in the complaint petition itself, which indicates the amount of Rs.4,30,000/- pursuant to the initial transaction and the subsequent repayment of Rs.70,000/-. The mentioning of Rs.40,30,000/-in paragraph-7 of the complaint petition which crept into the evidence- on- affidavit also, is likely to be a typographical error.

13. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the context of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Sukumar (supra) and Bansal Milk Chilling Centre (supra), I come to the considered opinion that the learned Additional CJM, Morigaon has rightly allowed the amendment vide order dated 27.06.2022 passed in CR Case No. 493 /2020 and similarly, the Page No.# 5/6

learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon did not commit any error in my considered opinion in upholding the said order vide Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.09/2022. Consequently, I do not find sufficient merit in this proceeding under Section 482 CrPC and the same stands dismissed.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at this stage that perhaps the imposition of cost in the revisional order may be interfered with. In this regard, it is submitted that the costs has not yet been deposited. Therefore accepting the prayer, the cost of Rs.2500/- imposed on the petitioner is hereby set aside.

15. The interim order if any shall be vacated.

16. Return the TCR.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent - complainant submits that perhaps a direction can be given to the learned trial court for expediting the trial. Needless to say that every trial deserves to be expedited. The docket explosion cannot be overlooked and the significant part of the docket explosion on the criminal side, comprises of cheque bounces cases. Therefore, within the constraints of learned trial court, the said learned court shall make an endeavour to conduct the trial expeditiously for the benefit for all the stakeholders.

18. Accordingly, the instant proceeding is dismissed subject to the aforesaid order with regard to the costs.

JUDGE Page No.# 6/6

Comparing Assistant