9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unnumbered) seeking to permit her to amend the said petition with reference to the age of the respondent and that of the petitioner, the date of marriage between them and few more details regarding certain immovable properties owned by the petitioner. It was opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter thereby mainly contending that there is no provision enabling such amendment; and that if the amendment is, for any reason, allowed, it would change the very character of the petition and therefore, the same should not be allowed. Having considered the above rival submissions, the learned Magistrate by order dated 21.04.2006 allowed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent therein is now before this Court with this revision. 4. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Magistrate to entertain such a petition for amendment. He would submit that the concept of amendment is unknown to criminal law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though there is no specific provision in the Code, in the light of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld so in several judgements. Regarding the procedure for making claim before the Court for maintenance, what is filed under Section 125 (1) of the Code is pure and simple a petition and not a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) of the Code. This would again indicate that a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code is treated as a quasi-civil and quasi criminal proceeding. 9. It is true that to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, there is no specific provision in the said Code. But, the courts have held that petitions seeking such amendment to correct the curable infirmities, can be allowed even in respect of complaints. In this regard, a reference may usefully be made to the following judgements. 10. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Messrs Modi Distillery and others, (1987) 3 SCC 684, wherein the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the complaint (i.e.) instead of M/s.Modi Industries Limited, the name of the company was mentioned as M/s.Modi Distillery. In such a situation, the Hon'le Supreme Court held as follows:- The learned single Judge has focussed the attention only on the technical flaw in the complaint and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint to make corrections in the complaint, after taking the complaint on cognizance. It is purely an illegality committed by the Magistrate. 13. A perusal of the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court cited supra would make one thing clear (i.e.,) 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 would 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 amendment to be made. To 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 in the complaint. 14. When the Courts have taken such a consistent view that a formal amendment in respect of curable infirmity could be allowed even in a complaint, which is purely criminal, in my considered opinion, such amendment can certainly be allowed in a proceeding under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for substitution of a representative in respect of a private company to prosecute its complaint in the absence of specific provision of law. This view is in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court reported in K.M.Mathew v. State of Kerala [1992 L.W. (Crl.) 14] = 1992 Crl.L.J. 3779 wherein it was held that no specific provision of law is required for a Magistrate to drop the proceedings or to rescind the process in a summon case and it is the judicial discretion of the Magistrate to allow such proceedings..... 9. Thus it follows from the above decisions that even though there is no specific provision of law but in the interest of justice and by exercising the discretionary power, the Magistrate can even allow an amendment petition in the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. setting out some more pleadings. The question as to whether further pleadings by way of amendment are true or not true, is a matter for consideration and appraisal of evidence by the trial Magistrate and not by the Revisional Court like this Court while exercising the powers of Revision under Section 401 and 397 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality or impr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
