Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
S. Nagesh – Appellant
Versus
Shobha S. Aradhya – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 18127 of 2024)
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Section 528 of BNSS] – Dishonour of cheque – Cognizance of offence – Power conferred upon Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint is subject to complainant first satisfying Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within time – Satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of delay, must precede act of taking cognizance – Ordinarily, a proceeding instituted with limitation-linked delay before Court of law does not actually figure as a regular matter on its file until that delay is condoned – Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of respondent’s complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, even before delay of two days in its presentation was condoned – Order passed by High Court refusing to quash the same, set aside – Complaint case quashed. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, which was converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore. The Judge rejected the petition, holding that delay of two days in the filing of complaint was bonafide and cognizance had rightly been taken.
Findings of Court:
The respondent was herself responsible for this imbroglio as she had made a categorical statement in her complaint that it was filed within time, when it was not.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appellant, S. Nagesh, challenged an order passed by a High Court judge, which upheld the validity of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the subsequent cognisance taken by the Magistrate (!) (!) .
The complaint was initially filed by the respondent, Shobha S. Aradhya, alleging that the appellant issued a dishonoured cheque for a sum borrowed for purchasing a house and legal expenses (!) .
The Magistrate initially took cognisance of the complaint on the same day it was filed, despite noting a delay of two days in filing, which was later condoned by the Magistrate after considering her medical condition and the delay’s bonafide nature (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that cognisance could not have been validly taken before the delay in filing was condoned, asserting that the procedure prescribed by law was not followed, and that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to proceed without first condoning the delay (!) (!) .
The High Court concurred with the Magistrate’s view that the delay was only two days and was properly condoned, and thus, the cognisance was valid, despite the irregularity of taking cognisance before condonation (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court, however, held that the law requires the Court to first consider and condone any delay before proceeding to take cognisance of the complaint. It emphasized that this sequence is mandated to ensure procedural correctness and that taking cognisance prior to condonation constitutes an irregularity that cannot be overlooked (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the Court found that the Magistrate erred by taking cognisance of the complaint before condoning the delay, and the High Court’s order refusing to quash the complaint was set aside (!) .
The final decision was to allow the appeal and quash the complaint, effectively dismissing the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 9119 of 2018. This petition was filed by S. Nagesh, the appellant before us, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, which was converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore1[For short, ‘the learned Magistrate’]. The learned Judge rejected the petition, holding that the delay of two days in the filing of the complaint was bonafide and cognizance had rightly been taken.
3. In her complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, Shobha S. Aradhya, the respondent, averred as follows: The appellant had approached her husband and her, seeking financial assistance to purchase a house and to meet legal necessities. They lent him a sum of ?5,40,000/- between the dates 27.01.2010 and 26.07.2010. He, thereafter, issued cheque dated 10.07.2013 drawn in her name for the said sum, assuring that it would be honoured upon presentation. However, the cheque was dishonoured on 17.07.2013 for insufficiency of funds. She got issued legal notice dated 13.08.2013 calling upon the appellant to pay the cheque amount within 15 days but the same was returned as ‘unclaimed’ on 22.08.2013. However, the copy of the notice sent through courier was not returned unserved and the same amounted to deemed service. However, no payment was made by the appellant. She, thereupon, filed the complaint praying that the Court take cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812[For short, ‘the NI Act’], and punish the appellant in accordance with law, apart from awarding her compensation.
4. The then learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint and the documents, noted the presence of the complainant and took cognisance, vide order dated 09.10.2013. However, by order dated 23.05.2014, the successor learned Magistrate noted that, though there was a delay of two days in the filing of the complaint, his predecessor-in-office had already taken cognisance of the offence and granted liberty to the accused, viz., the appellant, to contest the delay at the time of the trial. The case was directed to be registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and summons were directed to be issued to him to appear on the next date of hearing. It was reiterated that liberty was granted to the appellant to contest the delay at the time of the trial.
5. Thereafter, by order dated 04.02.2016, the learned Magistrate noted that an application had been filed for condonation of the delay of two days in the presentation of the complaint and opined that the same required to be considered before the case went to trial on merits. Having considered the objections on the said application, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 30.10.2018 allowing it. Therein, it was noted that the complainant had stated in the condone delay application that she was suffering from viral fever and was, therefore, unable to present the complaint within time. The learned Magistrate also took note of the medical certificate produced by her, wherein it was stated that she was suffering from viral fever and was under treatment from 04.10.2013 to 07.10.2013. Opining that the delay of two days in the presentation of the complaint was purely bonafide, the learned Magistrate allowed the application; condoned the delay in the filing of the complaint; and directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the appellant.
6. Aggrieved by this turn of events, the appellant approached the High Court by way of Criminal Petition No. 9119 of 2018. This petition was filed on 06.12.2018. Therein, the appellant contended that there was a delay of sixteen days in the filing of the complaint and not just two days. He
(1) Cognizance of offence – Power conferred upon Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint is subject to complainant first satisfying Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint....
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be maintained if filed beyond the limitation period without a condonation application. Interference in acquittals requires stric....
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while ensuring fairness to both parties.
The court can condone delays in filing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act if satisfied with a sufficient cause, assessing the substance of justice over technicalities.
Delay in filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be condoned if satisfactorily explained and not deliberate or malafide.
A complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act must be filed within the statutory limitation, and failure to comply with Section 142(b) regarding delay results in dismissal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
