Amendment of complaint under sec.200 of Cr.P.C.- Allowed - Evidence recorded - took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused - Challenged - High court declined - Apex court held that In the instant case, the amendment application was filed on
24.05.2007 to carry out the amendment by adding paras 11(a) and 11 (b).
Though, the proposed amendment was not a formal amendment, but a
substantial one, the Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly on
the ground that no cognizance was taken of the complaint before the
disposal of amendment application.
Firstly, Magistrate was yet to apply
the judicial mind to the contents of the complaint and had not taken
cognizance of the matter.
Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered to
be issued to the accused, no prejudice would be caused to the accused.
Thirdly, the amendment did not change the original nature of the complaint
being one for defamation.
Fourthly, the publication of poem ‘Khalnayakaru’
being in the nature of subsequent event created a new cause of action in
favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the respondent
by filing a separate complaint and therefore to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application.
Considering
these factors which weighed in the mind of the courts below, in our view,
the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the
Magistrate allowing the amendment application and the impugned order does
not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. -2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS
24.05.2007 to carry out the amendment by adding paras 11(a) and 11 (b).
Though, the proposed amendment was not a formal amendment, but a
substantial one, the Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly on
the ground that no cognizance was taken of the complaint before the
disposal of amendment application.
Firstly, Magistrate was yet to apply
the judicial mind to the contents of the complaint and had not taken
cognizance of the matter.
Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered to
be issued to the accused, no prejudice would be caused to the accused.
Thirdly, the amendment did not change the original nature of the complaint
being one for defamation.
Fourthly, the publication of poem ‘Khalnayakaru’
being in the nature of subsequent event created a new cause of action in
favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the respondent
by filing a separate complaint and therefore to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application.
Considering
these factors which weighed in the mind of the courts below, in our view,
the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the
Magistrate allowing the amendment application and the impugned order does
not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. -2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS
