Dismissing the Petition filed to amend the cause-title in a private complaint, the present Civil Revision Case has been filed.
2.The Petitioner herein is the complainant in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The above complaint has been filed against the Managing Director/Partner of M/s.Exigo Data Service Private Limited, Trichy. After filing of the complaint, before taking cognizance of the offence, the Petitioner has filed an application for amendment, for including the Managing Director and Director of the company as second and third accused. The above application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
3.I have heard the submissions made by Ms.Sona Alagesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Selva, learned counsel for the respondents.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to some oversight, the Managing Director and one of the Directors of the company were not included as accused. The proposed second and third accused have only jointly signed the cheque and given to the Petitioner/complainant to discharge their liability. Hence they are liable to be punished for their conduct. In order to amend the cause title, the Petitioner has filed a petition under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Without considering the same, the trial Court had dismissed the said application.
5.The learned counsel for the proposed accused also contended that the Petition filed by the Petitioner to amend the cause title is not maintainable, as there is no provision either in Cr.P.C or in the Negotiable Instruments Act, enabling the petitioner to amend the complaint.
6.I have heard the rival submissions of either side and considered the materials on record.
7.It is an application filed seeking amendment in the complaint to include the Managing Director and Director of the company, who are all the signatories of the Cheque. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in a decision in S.R.Sukumar .Vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 609, wherein, it has been held as follows:
''19.What is discernible from U.P Pollution Control Board Case is that an easily curable legal infirmity could be cured by means of an formal application for amendment. If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the court may permit such an amendment to be made. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint.''
8.The amendment sought by the Petitioner is only to include the Managing Director and Director, who are all signatories of the cheque and also the application has been filed before taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate and the amendment sought is only to correct an infirmity, which is curable one. The Court below without considering the same dismissed the application.
9.In the above circumstances,this Civil Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.9147 of 11 in Cr.M.P.No.4883 of 2011, dated 14.6.2012 is set aside and Cr.M.P.No.9147 is allowed and the the Court below is directed to amend the cause-title by including the propose accused as respondents 2 and
3. To The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.
.