Mehboob Khan vs Jagwinder Patyal and Another

Surinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner filed a complaint u/s 500 and 501 IPC against Jagan Dayal Patyal and Ramesh Chander Aggarwal, in which the summoning order was passed against Jagan Dayal Patyal and Ramesh Chander Aggarwal.

An application was moved by respondent No. 1 for withdrawal of summons issued against Jagan Dayal Patyal as his name is Jagwinder Patyal and not Jagan Dayal Patyal. The complainant also moved an application for permission to rectify the name of accused No. 1 Jagan Dayal Patyal as Jagwinder Patyal as the mistake was typographical and clerical.

The trial Court vide order dated 24.07.2008 allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 and ordered that he cannot be summoned as his name is not mentioned in the complaint. The application filed by the complainant seeking rectification of the name was dismissed with the observation that no amendment in the complaint case can be allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the name of accused No. 1/respondent No. 1 was wrongly mentioned in the complaint due to typographical/clerical mistake. He is the correspondent/reporter of Dainik Bhaskar against whom the complaint was filed. This fact is nowhere denied that he is not the correspondent/reporter against whom the complaint has been filed. The simple fact that his name has been mentioned as ''Jagan Dayal Patyal'' instead of ''Jagwinder Patyal'' is no reason to debar the complainant from proceeding with the complaint against him. It was merely a typographical mistake which can be rectified particularly when respondent No. 1 is not denying his status and address as given in the complaint.

The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that that in the complaint, the description of accused No. 1 was given as Jagan Dayal Patyal and he was summoned. No summoning order was passed against the respondent No. 1. The amendment as sought by the petitioner could not be allowed.

It is not disputed that Jagwinder Patyal is the correspondent/reporter of Dainik Bhaskar (Chandigarh Bhaskar). The application for withdrawal of the summon was moved only on the ground that the name has been mentioned as ''Jagan Dayal Patyal'' instead of ''Jagwinder Patyal''. The complainant in his application has categorically submitted that he is an illiterate person and on account of wrong pronunciation of the name, it was written as ''Jagan Dayal Patyal'' instead of ''Jagwinder Patyal''.

The trial Court could make out while disposing the application of the complainant as to whether ''Jagan Dayal Patyal'' and ''Jagwinder Patyal'' are two different persons or there was a typographical mistake. However, the application was declined only with the observation that amendment of complaint cannot be allowed. The rectification of clerical mistake is not an amendment of complaint or the material facts mentioned in the complaint. The rectification of unintentional clerical/typographical mistake in complaint can be allowed in the interest of justice.

The petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court dated 20.05.2009 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner to rectify the clerical mistake is allowed. The trial Court is directed to further proceed with the case.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.