The Supreme Court has ruled that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a cheque bounce complaint filed beyond the limitation without first condoning the delay. Setting aside the Karnataka High Court order, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings under the NI Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Jan 6, 2026, delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) if it is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without first condoning the delay.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Shobha S. Aradhya against S. Nagesh regarding a dishonoured cheque of ₹5,40,000. The complainant alleged that the appellant issued a cheque on July 10, 2013, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds on July 17, 2013.
After issuing a legal notice that remained unserved, the complainant filed the complaint on October 9, 2013, seeking the court’s intervention under Section 138 of the NI Act, which deals with dishonoured cheques.
Procedural History
- Initial Cognizance: The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on the same day it was filed, without addressing a delay of two days in filing.
- Condonation of Delay: On October 30, 2018, the Magistrate condoned the delay after considering the complainant’s medical certificate, citing viral fever as a valid reason for the delay.
- High Court Petition: The appellant challenged the complaint in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the Magistrate could not take cognizance before the delay was condoned. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the condonation and the cognizance.
Legal Issue
The main legal question before the Supreme Court was:
Can a Magistrate take cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act without first condoning the delay in filing?
The appellant argued that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a belated complaint, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra (2014).
Supreme Court Judgment
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, examined the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act, which allows courts to take cognizance of a belated complaint only if the complainant shows sufficient cause for the delay. The Court clarified:
- The Court noted that condonation of delay must precede taking cognizance:
“The satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of the delay, must therefore precede the act of taking cognizance.”
- The Supreme Court criticized the Karnataka High Court for treating the order of cognizance and condonation of delay as interchangeable.
- Drawing parallels with civil law (CPC Order XLI Rules 3A & 5(3)), the Court clarified that proceedings filed beyond limitation do not appear on a court’s record until the delay is condoned.
- The Court held that the complainant was partly responsible for the confusion because she erroneously claimed the complaint was filed within time.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014, on the grounds of procedural irregularity.
“The learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned. The order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the same is, thus, set aside.”
– SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Case Title:
S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya
SLP (Crl.) No. 18127 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT
Read More Reports On Cheque Bounce Case
