It would seem challenging to amend the criminal complaint at the outset, as the Indian Laws don’t provide any express provision. However, in a recent case, S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram [Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2015], the Supreme Court ruled that if the amendment is sought to be done in the complaint and is only a simple infirmity, which is responsive to using a formal amendment. If no prejudice is done to the other side in the process, then the Court may allow amendment of the complaint.
Amendment in criminal complaint is also permissible in cases where the Magistrate has yet to take cognizance of the offences complained. A Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence when he chooses to pursue against the individual blamed for having committed that offence and not when the Magistrate is informed either by the complainant by filing the complaint or by the police report about the commission of an offence.
In the instant case, a complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), claiming the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complainant’s statement was recorded after the filing of the complaint. After that, an application for an amendment to the complaint by the method of addition was documented, and the same was permitted. From that point, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence. The accused applied subduing of the request permitting amendment on the ground that there is no provision under the Code under which amendment can be made. High Court maintained the finding of the Trial Court since no awareness was taken before the date of permitting amendment. No bias could be expressed to have been caused to the accused. Furthermore, the refusal of amendment might have come about in different proceedings.
The amendment is also allowed in cases where the Court’s summons haven’t been issued yet to be issued. This implies that no prejudice has been caused to the other party, so an amendment to the complaint can occur. One important thing to note here is that the amendment keeps the original nature of the complaint the same. It changes very minimal details, which only affects part of the structure of the complaint’s nature. There were some instances on which the Court relied. They are:
- K. Sinha Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd & Ors.
- R. Chari v. State of U.P
- Devarpally Lakshminarayan Reddy & Ors. V. Narayan Reddy & Ors.
- P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distellary & Ors.
In conclusion, the amendment cannot be formal but a substantial one. The amendment application’s acceptance depends mainly on the fact that the Magistrate has taken no cognizance action before the filing of the amendment complaint. Secondly, Since the Court still needs to summon the accused, no prejudice has yet to be caused, and therefore, the amendment is possible. Thirdly, the amendment only changes minimal details and not the original nature of the complaint. Lastly, if a new cause of action arises, which could have been prosecuted by filing a separate complaint, the amendment can be allowed to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
Based on all the abovementioned factors, the Court can grant a request for an amendment to be made to a criminal complaint.
Leave A Comment