Dismissed

Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2021CRLRC/313/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision Case No.313 of 2021 dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to amend a criminal complaint. The petitioner sought to correct a mistake regarding the accused's bank account details. The Revision Court upheld the lower court's order, noting the amendment sought to cause prejudice and effectively put up a new case, beyond curable in

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment of complaint dismissed; Revision case dismissed.

Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.313 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 20.3.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.243/2019 in C.C.No.149/2015 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. The petitioner is the complainant filed an application under section 215 of Cr.P.C. r/w Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the complaint and carry out consequential amendments as mentioned in the petition. The same was dismissed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram vide order dated 20.3.2020 with the following observations.

¶4

“ Section 215 of Cr.P.C. deals with effect of errors which reads as thus.

¶5

215. Effect of errors: No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice”

¶6

A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the above section deals with what amount to material errors or omissions. The above provision does not provide for amendment of complaint. For that matter, there is no provision either under Code of Criminal Procedure or under Negotiable Instruments Act permitting amendment of complaint. In the instant case, the petitioner/complaint right from the issuance of notice after dishonor of cheque till filing of his chief affidavit maintained that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/which was allegedly borrowed by respondent/accused was sent to the account of respondent/accused with Corporation Bank, Akividu branch through RTGS process, but now the petitioner/complainant has changed his version and contend that the said amount was sent to the ICICI Bank account of respondent/accused with Srinagar Colony Branch, Hyderabad. The amendment sought for by the petitioner/complainant not only have the effect of putting up a new case but also causes prejudice to the respondent/accused in setting up his defence.”

¶7

The said orders were assailed in this criminal revision case.

¶8

The application is filed praying the Court for the following amendment:

¶9

¶10

“ For investment in fish tanks being done by the accused, on lease, he borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant, on 15.3.2010, through RTGS process in HDFC Bank in China-Amiram Branch by depositing HDFC Bank cheque no.008052 in the account of Complainant’s HDFC Bank Account no.10338670000333 to The credit of the Accused A/c No.068001000564 of his ICICI Bank Account of Sri Nagar Colony Branch, Hyderabad, agreeing to repay the same, with the interest thereon, at the rate of 24% per annum. In addition to that, the accused again borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 02.01.2013 agreeing to repay the same, along with the earlier amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, at the rate of 24% per annum and then executed a receipt, dated 02.01.2013, acknowledging the total debt i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-, totaling to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-, irrespective of limitation to the earlier debt.

¶11

The sentence in cause of action para, i.e. ‘you’re a/c No.821 of Corporation Bank, Akiveedu Branch may be permitted to be deleted, in place of deleted sentence, the following sentence may be permitted to be added.

¶12

Accused A/c No.06800100564 of his ICICI Bank Account of Sri Nagar Colony Branch, Hyderabad.

¶13

In replacing the original complaint which reads as follows:

¶14

“ For investment in fish tanks being done by the accused, on lease, he borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant, on 15.3.2010, through RTGS process in HDFC Bank in China-Amiram Branch to your A/c No.821 of Corporation Bank, Akiveedu Branch, agreeing to repay the same, with interest thereon, at the rate of 24% per annum. In addition to that, the accused again borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 02.01.2013 agreeing to repay the same, along with the earlier amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, at the rate of 24% per annum and then executed a receipt, dated 02.01.2013, acknowledging the total debt i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-, totaling to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-, irrespective of limitation to the earlier debt.

¶15

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

¶16

that the order of the Court below is contrary to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in between S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram¹ in which it is recited that while allowing the amendment application by observing that though there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints by following U.P.Pollution Control

¶17

1 2015 9 SCC 609

¶18

¶19

Board vs. Modi Distillery And Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 684 and in fact the Court specifically stated that easily curable legal infirmity could be cured by means of a formal application for amendment. 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 could 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 an amendment to be made. Without considering said observations of the Apex Court, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the sole ground that there is no provision for amendment of the complaint.

¶20

Learned Counsel further submitted that by mistake of fact, the amounts were deposited in some other account of Srinagar colony branch of ICICI Bank instead of Corporation bank Akiveedu branch. It is only a mistake of act and it can be curable by way of an amendment and the fact was not considered by the Court below and rejected the application only on the ground that there is no provision to file such application.

¶21

After notice, Sri Y.Ramatirtha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that during the course of trial and coming up for DW1’s evidence and to cover up the latches, now the present application is filed by the petitioner after completion of PW1’s crossexamination to correct the defect, the present application is filed for amendment. In fact in the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is certain procedure contemplated initially notice, reply and complaint. So at the point of time either at the notice time or reply time, the petitioner has not taken such a plea and after completion of evidence of petitioner, now the present application is filed and the same is not maintainable.

¶22

¶23

Even on perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it clearly states that only to cure the infirmities, the application is permitted to file. But in the instant case, the petitioner sought the application to amend the contents of the complaint which cannot be entertained. 7. On perusal of the orders of the Apex Court as well as the complaint and amendment petition, this Court is satisfied with the order passed by the Court below, though the Court below has not given any finding with regard to the observations of the Apex Court, it is not just to mention that the Apex Court’s observations are only to cure the infirmities, the application is permitted to file. In view of the same this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below.

¶24

Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed.

¶25

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶26

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 06.12.2021 RD

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.313 of 2021

¶30

Date: 06.12.2021

¶31

Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandikota Chandra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ajay Kumar Saxena Vs Station House Officer

Shivani Vs Station House Officer

A Anantha Vs the State of Ap

Ghantasala Rambabu, Vs State of Ap

B.Venkata Raji Vs State of Ap