ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner and his mother Smt. H.R Leelavathi for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 499 and 500 of IPC, alleging that they used the name of Late S.G Raghuram as the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant amended the complaint contending that he has been defamed by the Poem written by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has allowed the application for amendment of the complaint vide order dated 24.05.2007 and after recording the statements of the respondent and his witnesses and after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent, has taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner only, by an order dated 21.06.2007
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2007 of taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner, the petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 which is registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 on the ground that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the amendment of the complaint.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate was not justified in amending the complaint by entertaining the petition for amendment of the complaint. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case based on such amendment and the same is not permissible under law. Therefore, the proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 are liable to be quashed.
5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya v. S.N Thakur reported in (1986) 2 SCC 709. In the above case, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and a final order has been passed. Subsequently, the Magistrate passed the order revoking his earlier order dismissing the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific provision under the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged defamation took place at Mysore. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent at Bangalore is not maintainable. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance in the case of Sri C.S Sathya v. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 Crl.L.J 1954. This case involved a weekly newspaper containing defamatory article read by the complainant at Udupi, the newspaper printed, published and meant for reading at Bangalore. This Court held that the act and consequence of harming reputation of complainant completing at Bangalore, the Court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try the offences of defamation.
7. Relying on the above decisions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that when there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the order passed by the Magistrate amending the complaint and permitting the respondent to amend the complaint by adding paras 11(a) and 11(b) is not permissible under law. Therefore, the entire proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 are liable to be quashed.
8. As seen from the case record, the complainant filed an application on 24.05.2007 seeking amendment to the complaint filed by him by adding paras 11(a) and 11(b). The learned Magistrate allowed the application on the same day and the respondent-complainant was permitted to carry out amendment by adding paras-11(a) and 11(b). After carrying out amendment, the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of witnesses produced by the respondent and after perusing the contents of the complaint, sworn statement and after hearing the Counsel for the complainant, has taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner under Sections 499 and 500 IPC and issued process to the petitioner.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner even after amendment of the complaint. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007. He placed reliance in the case of Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale v. Smt. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale reported in 1984 Crl.L.J 1257. In the above case, the applicant coming to know about the second marriage of the respondent-husband after filing maintenance application, filed application for amendment, the amendment was opposed by the other side on the ground that the Court had no such power under the Code. The Bombay High Court held the amendment was rightly allowed by the Courts below and in any case, the High Court would not interfere with the discretionary order passed at interlocutory stage and it was open to the respondent to oppose it at the final hearing.
10. Therefore, the only point for consideration is:
“Whether the amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C is permissible under law?”
11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent for amendment of the complaint by adding the prayers at paras 11(a) and 11(b) even prior to taking of the cognizance of the case. By the date of disposal of the amendment application i.e, on 24.05.2007, cognizance of the case was not taken. It appears that after coming to know about the Poem “” published by the petitioner, the respondent-complainant sought for amendment of the complaint already filed by him.
12. The petitioner contended that there is no reference to the respondent whatsoever in the said Poem. Even if there is no reference to the respondent in the said Poem, amendment of the complaint was allowed by the Magistrate even before taking cognizance of the case. If the amendment is not allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Since the amendment sought for by the respondent was allowed even before taking cognizance of the case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The petitioner may raise the above contentions at the time of final hearing of the case.
13. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in permitting the respondent to amend the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C even before taking cognizance of the case, after considering the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
The petition is therefore dismissed.