Madras H.C : In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds.

Sam V. Chelliah, for the Petitioner : B. Shanthakumar, for the Respondents

MAHESWARAN, J.:

In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds.

The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused- respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under ss. 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, IPC, and under ss. 276(c) and 277 of the IT Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this Court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this Court under s. 482 of the CrPC to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint.

The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as ” Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner “. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the CrPC to amend the complaint. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under s. 482, CrPC, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under s. 482, CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the Court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the CrPC to amend the complaint, this Court will undoubtedly have power under s. 482, CrPC, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered.

[Citation : 170 ITR 12]