2015 (1) TMI 1201 - HC - Indian Laws

Correction of clerical mistake - dismissal of application for correction - Held that - The perusal of application at Annex.3 reveals that various corrections have been sought in the complaint and in few paras, it is in regard to the dates and number and such minor corrections, which may be of the words used and is to be substituted by similar words to make it correct. At the same time, correction has been sought of the nature, which is substantially changing the complaint itself So far as the corrections of clerical and typographical nature and of such similar mistakes, in Para Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 to 16 in the application at Annexure-3 are concerned, is should have been permitted looking to its nature but at the same time, correction in few other paras with changes either the nature or substance of the complaint, cannot be permitted. Accordingly, while accepting the application for correction in the complaint, as indicated in the Para Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 to 16 of application at Annexure - 3, the other correction in Para Nos. 9 and 12 are not accepted, as they are not found to be of clerical and typographical mistake. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the application moved by the petitioner Union of India is allowed to the extent, indicated above. The corrections as permitted, may be made by the complainant leaving other corrections, which are not permitted. Criminal misc. petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Correction of clerical mistake in the complaint.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a criminal misc. petition challenging the dismissal of an application by the petitioner, Union of India, seeking correction of typographical and clerical mistakes in the complaint. The petitioner argued that the corrections were minor in nature and did not change the substance of the complaint. The petitioner cited precedents where similar corrections were allowed by the court. On the other hand, the non-petitioner contended that the application sought to change the entire complaint itself and referenced specific paragraphs in the application where substantial changes were requested, such as deleting names of directors. The non-petitioner argued that such changes were not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

The court considered the submissions of both parties and examined the application seeking corrections in the complaint. It noted that some corrections were of typographical and clerical nature, such as dates, numbers, and minor word substitutions, which could be allowed for the ends of justice. The court referred to previous judgments, including one from the Hon'ble Madras High Court, which supported the allowance of corrections for typographical or clerical mistakes. The court held that such corrections were not prohibited by the Cr.P.C and could be permitted.

Ultimately, the court accepted the application for correction in certain paragraphs of the complaint (Para Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 to 16) where the corrections were of clerical and typographical nature. However, corrections that changed the nature or substance of the complaint, such as those in Para Nos. 9 and 12, were not accepted. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application to the extent indicated, directing the complainant to make the permitted corrections while leaving out those that were not allowed. As a result, the criminal misc. petition was allowed in part.