Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to set-aside the order dated 20.08.2020, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 13, Aligarh in connection with revision no. 216 of 2018 (Sarvesh Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the application of applicant seeking correction in name of respondent no.2 in memo of said revision and in order of revision, from 'Rajan' to Gudia has been rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have preferred a revision against the summoning order dated 25.10.2017 and that revision was decided vide order dated 24.12.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No. 216 of 2018 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Aligarh. Learned counsel submitted that due to clerical error, the name of respondent no.2 was mentioned as Rajan in place of Gudia in memo of revision and accordingly in the order of revisional Court dated 24.12.2019 also the name of respondent no.2 has been shown as Rajan. It was stated that applicants have moved an application for correction of said name, which was allowed by the Court below and it was directed that necessary correction be made within three days but the said correction could not be made by the counsel for the applicants nor any application for seeking further time was filed. Learned counsel submitted that after that the applicant has moved an application for correction of name of respondent no.2 but it has been rejected vide impugned order dated 20.08.2020. Learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice such application must have been allowed to correct clerical errors otherwise it would create complication in further proceedings.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, it is apparent that the matter in dispute pertains about the correction of clerical error in the memo of revision and in the order passed in the revision. It appears that name of respondent no.2 is Gudiya but due to clerical error her name has been mentioned in the memo of revision as 'Rajan' and accordingly in the order of Revisional Court also, the name has been shown as Rajan. In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 20.08.2020 is set aside and the Court below is directed to allow the applicants to make above stated correction in the memo of revision and thereafter the same may be incorporated by the Court concerned in the impugned order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 A. Tripathi