Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 106 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - offence u/s 138 of NI Act - Refusal to permit and to add the said company as accused No.3 in the complaints filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The amendment of the nature sought for in present petitions, cannot be permitted and therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain present petitions, as no infirmity or illegality is noticed in the impugned orders. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking permission to amend criminal cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Refusal to permit the addition of a company as an accused in the criminal cases. 3. Previous judgment quashing complaints due to non-impleadment of the company. 4. Legal arguments presented for amending the complaints. 5. Analysis of relevant case laws cited by the petitioner's counsel. 6. Court's decision on the permissibility of amending the complaints. The petitioner filed two petitions seeking permission to amend Criminal Cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to add a company as an accused. The Trial Judge refused the amendment, citing provisions of Section 138 and 141 of the Act along with Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner had not initially included the company as an accused in the proceedings. Additionally, a previous judgment by a co-ordinate bench of the Court had quashed complaints due to the non-impleadment of the company, which the petitioner did not challenge. Consequently, the petitioner sought to add the company as an accused, leading to the current petitions before the High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued for the permissibility of amending the complaints, citing various case laws from the Supreme Court and other High Courts. However, the Court analyzed each case presented and found them irrelevant to the issues at hand. The cases discussed did not align with the specific circumstances of the present petitions, where the sought amendment was not considered a simple infirmity that could be cured by the proposed changes. As a result, the Court concluded that the amendments requested by the petitioner could not be permitted based on the legal arguments and case laws presented. In light of the arguments and the analysis of the case laws, the Court found no merit in the petitions and rejected them at the admission stage. The Court emphasized that no infirmity or illegality was observed in the impugned orders, leading to the dismissal of the petitions seeking to amend the criminal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|