Supreme court: Complaint U/S 138 of NI Act can Be Amended Even After Cognizance Is Taken

 The issue, whether a criminal court has power to order

amendment of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.,

is no longer res integra. In S.R. Sukumar v. S.Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609, this Court held as under:-

“19. What is discernible from U.P. Pollution Control Board

case is that an 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. On 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.”

Hence, it is fallacious to contend that in no circumstance can

amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance is taken.

{Para 8}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.15699 OF 2024)

Bansal Milk Chilling Centre  Vs Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr. 

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 899

Dated: 25th July, 2025.

Print Page

When the court should not allow amendment of date mentioned in complaint and evidence recorded under S 138 of NI Act?

 Presently, an application has been filed seeking

amendment of the date of the cheque from 22.07.2010 to

22.07.2012 as also changing the date in the evidence

recorded by the complainant to the same effect. It is in

that light, at the first instance, the learned Magistrate

considering the application has rightly concluded that

even if the amendment/ correction is permitted in the

complaint to indicate the date as 22.07.2012, the

evidence supporting the case of the appellant contains

the year as 2010, and as such, the amendment/ correction

would not be justified. {Para 6}

9. In a matter of the present nature, where the date

is a relevant aspect based on which the entire aspect

relating to the issue of notice within the time frame as

provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and

also as to whether as on the date there was sufficient

balance in the account of the issuer of the cheque would

be the question, the amendment, as sought for, in the

present circumstance, was not justified.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2024

MUNISH KUMAR GUPTA  Vs M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY.

Dated: 30th April, 2024.

Print Page

Whether court can allow amendment of domestic violence petition?

 We understood in this backdrop, it cannot be said that the
Court dealing with the application under DV Act has no power
and/or jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the said application.
If the amendment becomes necessary in view of subsequent events
[escalation of prices in the instant case] or to avoid multiplicity
of litigation, Court will the have power to permit such an
amendment. It is said that procedure is the handmaid of justice and
is to come to the aid of the justice rather than defeating it. It
is nobody’s case that respondent no. 1 was not entitled to file
another application claiming the reliefs which she sought to
include in the pending application by way of amendment. If that be
so, we see no reason, why the applicant be not allowed to
incorporate this amendment in the pending application rather than
filing a separate application. It is not that there is a complete
ban/bar of amendment in the complaints in criminal Courts which are
governed by the Code, though undoubtedly such power to allow the
amendment has to be exercised sparingly and with caution under
limited circumstances. The pronouncement on this is contained in
the recent judgment of this Court in S.R.Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad
Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609 in the following paras:
“17. Insofar as merits of the contention
regarding allowing of amendment application, it
is true that 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. In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs.
Modi Distillery And Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 684,
wherein the name of the company was wrongly
mentioned in the complaint that is, instead of
Modi Industries Ltd. The name of the company was
mentioned as Modi Distillery and the name
was sought to be amended. In such factual
background, this Court has held as follows:-
“…The learned Single Judge has
focused his attention only on the
[pic]technical flaw in the complaint and
has failed to comprehend that the flaw
had occurred due to the recalcitrant
attitude of Modi Distillery and
furthermore the infirmity is one which
could be easily removed by having the
matter remitted to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate with a direction to call
upon the appellant to make the formal
amendments to the averments contained
in para 2 of the complaint so as to make
the controlling company of the
industrial unit figure as the concerned
accused in the complaint. All that has
to be done is the making of a formal
application for amendment by the
appellant for leave to amend by
substituting the name of Modi
Industries Limited, the company owning the
industrial unit, in place of Modi
Distillery…. Furthermore, the legal
infirmity is of such a nature which
could be easily cured...”
18. What is discernible from the U.P. Pollution
Control Board’s case is 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. On 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.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).516/2016

KUNAPAREDDY @ NOOKALA SHANKA BALAJI 
 V
KUNAPAREDDY SWARNA KUMARI & ANR 
Dated:APRIL 18, 2016.
Citation: (2016) 11 SCC774

Print Page

When court can permit amendment of complaint?

The vicarious liability of these officials of the Compa-
ny is to be viewed not in isolation but in the conspectus of
facts  and events and not in vacuum. The technical  flaw  in
the complaint lodged by the appellant Board had occurred due
to  the recalcitrant attitude of the industrial unit,  which
in  spite of more than one notice being issued had  deliber-
ately failed to furnish information called for regarding the
particulars and
800
names of the Managing Director, Directors and other  persons
responsible for the conduct of the Company. Having  wilfully
failed to furnish the requisite information to the Board, it
is  not open to the respondents 2 to 11 to seek the  Court's
assistance  to derive advantage from the lapse committed  by
their own industrial unit. Furthermore, the legal  infirmity
is  of such a nature which could be easily cured  by  having
the  matter remitted to the trial court with a direction  to
call upon the appellant to make the formal amendments to the
averments  in  the complaint so as to make  the  controlling
company  of  the  industrial unit figure  as  the  concerned
accused. [805BC, 804G, EF, H-805A]
    The Board and its legal advisors should have drafted the
complaint  with  greater  circumspection not  to  leave  any
technical flaw which would invalidate the initiation of  the
prosecution  allowing a large business house to  escape  the
consequences  of the breaches committed by it of the  provi-
sions of the Act with impunity. [805GH]

Supreme Court of India

U.P. Pollution Control Board vs Modi Distillery & Ors on 6 August, 1987

Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1128, 1987 SCR (3) 798, 1987 SCC (3) 684

Print Page

Whether criminal complaint can be amended?

 What is discernible from the U.P. Pollution Control Board’s case is 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. On 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.

Supreme Court of India

S.R.Sukumar vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July, 2015

Citation;AIR 2015 SC2757,(2015) 9 SCC 609

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi

Print Page