2020 (9) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of revision petition - Dishonor of cheque - application filed under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC - HELD THAT - It is evident from the record that petitioner- accused did not raise any objection before the learned revisional court about the maintainability of the revision. So, only on the ground of maintainability, this petition cannot be allowed - Therefore, petitioner-accused cannot raise such type of objection before this court. It is also evident that proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act is at initial stage so, respondent/complainant filed a petition for amendment and that petition can be allowed for complete justice. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to set aside order of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in criminal revision No. 161/2017 allowing respondent's revision against order of JMFC in Cr. Case No. 1669/208 under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Revision:
The petitioner-accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi, allowing the respondent's revision against the order of JMFC. The petitioner's counsel argued that the revision filed by the respondent was not maintainable as the order of JMFC was interim. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the objection regarding maintainability was not raised before the revisional court, citing the principle from the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. The High Court held that the objection of maintainability cannot be raised before the court at this stage, especially since the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act were at an initial stage.

2. Amendment in Memo of Complaint:
The respondent/complainant sought to amend the memo of complaint under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petitioner argued that allowing the amendment would change the facts significantly, making it difficult for him to defend himself. He contended that the revisional court wrongly permitted the amendment, which was against the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the amendment should be allowed for complete justice, citing various legal precedents supporting the court's inherent power to rectify mistakes and ensure justice. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that at the initial stage of the case, the amendment could be allowed to provide full and effective opportunity to the parties.

3. Decision on Merits:
After hearing both parties and considering the arguments presented, the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The court highlighted that every case must be decided on merit and that the petitioner-accused had ample opportunity to present his defense before the trial court. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the revisional court allowing the amendment in the memo of complaint and proceeding with the case based on merit.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of allowing amendments for complete justice, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, and highlighting the need to decide cases on their merits.