Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dale of Order: January 10, 2019
Dale of Order: January 10, 2019
CRL.M.C. 5316/2017
POOJA PRESS & PRAKASHAN PVT LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.P.S.Kang, Advocate
POOJA PRESS & PRAKASHAN PVT LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.P.S.Kang, Advocate
VERSUS
SPECTRUM MAGAZINE LTD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER'
(ORAL)
Impugned order of 30 th August, 2017 rejects petitioner's application for providing correct nnë and addiess of respondent while observing that second respondent ha len?described as "Amit Metre" in the Memo of Parties and so, nanTe of respondent cannot be changed to
'And Metre', as the whole c'ontroTeisy is regarding name of respondent
, -
No.2 and thus, notice has bëen issüedby the Revisional Court vide impugned order to "Amit Metre" and not 'A nil Metre'.
Notice of this petitiói o :ositeidisispensed with, as notice has not been issued by the Revisional Court to the respondents.
Petitioner's counsel submits that the Revisional Court has noticed that although in the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, the accused has been described as 'Amit Metre' but before the trial court, "Anil Metre" had appeared and had furnished the bail bond and so, typographical error in the name of respondent-
Cr1.M.C.5316/2017 Page lof2 2019:DHC:7578 accused cannot be a ground to issue notice to a non-existent person i.e.
"Am it Metre ". Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure P-6 (colly) which reveals that bail bonds were furnished by 'Anil Metre' before the trial court. Attention of this Court is also drawn to a decision of Bombay
High Court of 3rd October, 2012 in Ainol Shripal Sheth Vs. M/s Hari Om
Trading Co. & Ors. Annexure P-9) to submit that complainant was not in a position to give correct name of accused and so, compiainant was permitted to amend the complaint.
Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record and decision cited, I find that the complainant may not be in a position to give the correct name of accused. In the instant case, 'Anil Metre' had infact appeared before the trial court and'was
' '. granted bail and in such a situation, request to not issue notice to "Amit Metre' cannot be justified.
In view of decision in Amol Shnipal Sheth ('Sup;"a), the Revisional Court after heai ing the parties is required to consider as to whether amendment of complaint is to be allowed or not In the peculiar facts of this case, impugned order is set aside a Iétitioner's prayer is allowed to the extent that notice be now issued by the Revisional Court to 'Anil Metre' on the addiess given in the application or at any other addiess so furnished by petitioner, if an occasion arises.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Records be remitted back forthwith.
(SUNIJ JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2019 r Cr1.M.C. 5316/2017 Page2of2
2019:DHC:7578
ORDER'
(ORAL)
Impugned order of 30 th August, 2017 rejects petitioner's application for providing correct nnë and addiess of respondent while observing that second respondent ha len?described as "Amit Metre" in the Memo of Parties and so, nanTe of respondent cannot be changed to
'And Metre', as the whole c'ontroTeisy is regarding name of respondent
, -
No.2 and thus, notice has bëen issüedby the Revisional Court vide impugned order to "Amit Metre" and not 'A nil Metre'.
Notice of this petitiói o :ositeidisispensed with, as notice has not been issued by the Revisional Court to the respondents.
Petitioner's counsel submits that the Revisional Court has noticed that although in the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, the accused has been described as 'Amit Metre' but before the trial court, "Anil Metre" had appeared and had furnished the bail bond and so, typographical error in the name of respondent-
Cr1.M.C.5316/2017 Page lof2 2019:DHC:7578 accused cannot be a ground to issue notice to a non-existent person i.e.
"Am it Metre ". Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure P-6 (colly) which reveals that bail bonds were furnished by 'Anil Metre' before the trial court. Attention of this Court is also drawn to a decision of Bombay
High Court of 3rd October, 2012 in Ainol Shripal Sheth Vs. M/s Hari Om
Trading Co. & Ors. Annexure P-9) to submit that complainant was not in a position to give correct name of accused and so, compiainant was permitted to amend the complaint.
Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record and decision cited, I find that the complainant may not be in a position to give the correct name of accused. In the instant case, 'Anil Metre' had infact appeared before the trial court and'was
' '. granted bail and in such a situation, request to not issue notice to "Amit Metre' cannot be justified.
In view of decision in Amol Shnipal Sheth ('Sup;"a), the Revisional Court after heai ing the parties is required to consider as to whether amendment of complaint is to be allowed or not In the peculiar facts of this case, impugned order is set aside a Iétitioner's prayer is allowed to the extent that notice be now issued by the Revisional Court to 'Anil Metre' on the addiess given in the application or at any other addiess so furnished by petitioner, if an occasion arises.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Records be remitted back forthwith.
(SUNIJ JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2019 r Cr1.M.C. 5316/2017 Page2of2
2019:DHC:7578
JUDGMENT