Magistrate has jurisdiction to allow amendment application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abrar Mohd. vs Smt. Noorjahan Bano
M.Cr.C. No.14235/2016 1
Shri Pawan Devnani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashtush Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Morena, in Misc. Cri. Case No.222/2015, whereby the Family Court has allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by respondent/wife on the ground of subsequent development of birth of a child.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity inasmuch as in a criminal proceeding the Family Court was not justified in allowing an application under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and there are serious disputes about the paternity of new born.
Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that since the proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are quasi criminal and quasi civil, therefore, subsequent developments could have been brought on record by way of amendment and the Family Court has rightly allowed the application under Oder 6 Rule 17 CPC.
In the case of Sh. Alauddin @ Alai Khan vs. Khadiza Bibi as reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 2035 (Cal.), it has been held that the proceedings for maintenance are in the nature of civil proceedings though the criminal process is applied for the purpose of summons and speedy disposal of such matter in the interest of society. Similarly, in the case of Parthasarathy Vs. Banumathy, 1998(3) Crimes 642 (Mad.) it has been held that proceeding laid down in this Chapter is enacted as a measure of social justice, therefore, the jurisdiction of a Magistrate is not strictly a criminal jurisdiction. This issue of amendment has been dealt with by the Orissa High Court in the case of Sabita Sahoo vs. Capt. Khirod Kumar Sahoo as reported in II (1990) DMC 435 wherein the Orissa High Court in para 7 of the said order has held that though the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in terms did not apply to the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., but nonetheless in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Haribhau Kisan Patil v. Manorma and Anr. as reported in (1985) DMC 230 held that Magistrate has jurisdiction to allow amendment application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent/wife to amend the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. could be allowed by the Magistrate and has been rightly allowed. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge
22 March, 2017