Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Request To Rectify Incorrect Cheque Dates In Complaint Under NI Act, Deems It A Substantial Defect

Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Request To Rectify Incorrect Cheque Dates In Complaint Under NI Act, Deems It A Substantial Defect

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized that the error of citing incorrect dates of cheques in the complaint cannot be rectified as there exists no provision in the CrPC to amend a criminal complaint.

Justice Pranay Verma noted that the discrepancy in the dates of the cheque constitutes a "significant flaw," particularly since summons have already been served to the accused and they have appeared before the trial court.

The accused issued four cheques amounting to Rs 7,00,000/- to settle the debt. However, on 11/06/2019, when these cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, a legal notice was send to the accused on 18.06.2019.

In the complaint, the dates of the cheques were initially mentioned as 10/5/2018 and 15/5/2018, whereas the cheques presented before the court bore the dates of 10.05.2019 and 15.05.2019. In response, the accused applied to the trial court under Section 142 of the NI Act.

The complainant argued before the trial court that the alteration in dates was merely a typographical error, which could be rectified through an amendment. Disregarding the accused's plea and favoring the complainant's stance, the trial court noted that dismissing a complaint solely on technical grounds is unwarranted.

“…. The amendment if permitted would change the entire nature of the complaint as the date of the cheques itself would be altered. The facts proposed to be inserted by way of the amendment are not at all based upon subsequent events. If the amendment is permitted it would certainly cause prejudice to the accused….” the bench expressed that the trial court made a mistake by granting the amendments requested by the respondent.

Prior to rejecting the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by the accused, the court highlighted that in the case of S.R. Sukumar, limited amendments were permitted as they did not alter the fundamental nature of the complaint. The proposed amendments in that instance were rooted in subsequent events.

Justice Verma expressed his view that the trial court had erred in permitting amendments to the original complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Additionally, the accused had contested the trial court's decision, which denied his Section 142 application (due to the expiration of the limitation period), before the High Court.

In several other cases cited by the complainant/respondent, amendments were requested to rectify the name of the complainant company following a subsequent event such as a merger, or to rectify the name of the bank on which the cheque was drawn, the court elaborated. The court emphasized that such amendments do not alter the essence of the complaint as they address correctable deficiencies.

The matter raised in the cases cited by the respondent/complainant did not concern whether amendments to a complaint under the provisions of Cr.P.C. can be allowed or not, the court clarified.

In previous rulings such as Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) and Lekhraj Singh Kushwah v. Brahmanand Tiwari (2013), the High Court has determined that errors in the cheque number, similar to those in the date of the cheque, cannot be rectified through an amendment. The court had also noted then that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C to amend the criminal complaint.

Consequently, the court annulled the trial court's order and directed it to review and make a fresh decision on the accused's application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.