- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P1). Petitioner-Sukhdev Singh has filed complaint (Annexure P5) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Rs.Act' in short) against respondent-Parminder Kaur with regard to the dishonour of cheque dated 6.1.2003 which was issued in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in discharge of legal liability. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner moved an application dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P8) seeking correction of the cheque number in the complaint. In the application, it was averred that due to inadvertence clerical mistake, cheque number has been mentioned in the complaint as EV614065. It was further averred that in the legal notice served on the respondent, the cheque number has been correctly mentioned.
(2.) Respondent, in reply to the said application, (Annexure P9) averred that the application had been moved at a belated stage. In the notice of accusation also, the cheque number has been mentioned as stated in the complaint. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P1) dismissed the application. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in dismissing the application seeking correction of the cheque number in the complaint as the mistake had occurred due to a typographical error. The cheque in question had been duly attached with the complaint. In the legal notice served on the respondent, the cheque number had been correctly mentioned. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the application had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court as the defect sought to be rectified by the petitioner goes to the root of the matter. The correction could not be allowed to rectify the defect. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on M/s Kumar Rubber Industries vs. Sohan Lal, 2002 2 RCR(Cri) 111 wherein it was held that the cheques were the very basis of foundation of the complaint and by not correctly giving the number of the cheque, the very foundation of the case had not been properly laid. The complaint itself became not maintainable.;