SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 166

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Ankur Asthana - Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. And Another – Respondents 
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 692 of 2023, Along with Application U/s 482 No. 1829 of 2022:
Decided On : 29-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Anand Mani Tripathi, Anurag Tripathi
For the Respondent: G.A., Anil Kumar Pandey, Ramakar Shukla

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable if filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period, which affects the cause of action.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 142 - Quashing of complaint - Applicant sought to quash orders of the trial court regarding summons issued in complaints under Section 138 due to alleged procedural violations - Court held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the notice is not maintainable (Paras 6, 13, 15).

(B) Legal procedure - The court stressed the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for filing a complaint under Section 138 - Delay in filing must be justified as per law (Paras 36-42).

Facts of the case:
The applicant contested two orders involving complaints filed for dishonored cheques; the complaints were claimed to violate the mandatory notice requirement under Section 138.

Findings of Court:
The court clarified that a complaint cannot be maintained unless the notice period has elapsed, emphasizing strict compliance with the NI Act provisions.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the complaints were premature due to the early filing before the expiry of notice period and whether requirements under NI Act were adhered to.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the procedural mandate under NI Act must be observed, and new complaints can only be made within specified time frames, reaffirming the need for a valid cause of action (Paras 13, 41).

Result: Both applications are rejected.

Table of Content
1. common question of facts and law in applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of complaints under section 138 ni act. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments concerning legal notice and maintainability. (Para 7 , 8)
4. observations on the need for fresh complaints and legal procedures. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. final directions regarding fresh complaints and legal notices. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. conclusion of cases and rejection of applications. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the applications, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement.

2. In APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 692 of 2023, the applicant has sought following main relief(s) :-

“to quash the orders dated 04.01.2023 and 17.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge Junior Division C-No.26/ Additional Judicial Magistrate - Sultanpur, in the interest of justice and the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to restrain the lower Court 23 below from proceeding any further in pursuance of aforesaid Criminal Case No. 13 of 2022, Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Sultanpur and also quash the entire proceeding of the above said case, in the interest of justice.”

3. In APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1829 of 2022, the applicant has sought following main relief(s) :-

“to quash the order dated 09.02.2022 in Criminal Case No. 390/2022 "M/s Kashish Enterprises Vs. Ankur Asthana" Under Section-138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur passed by the learned Court below i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Lower Division) Avar Khand/Judicial Magistrate Room No. 31 District Sultanpur and further proceedings of the case passed in pursuance thereof.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint No. 390/2022 "M/s Kashish Enterprises Vs. Ankur Asthana" Under Section-138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, in the interest of justice.”

4. Before proceeding, it would be apt to indicate that the applicant had challenged the order dated 09.02.2022 in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1829 of 2022 whereby the complaint was directed to be registered and notice was issued to the applicant and during the pendency of the said application, the applicant has also filed second APPLICATION U/ s 482 No. 692 of 2023.

5. Facts of the case, as stated by learned counsel for the applicant, are that the the opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Complaint No. 390 of 2022 (M/s Kashish Enterprises Vs Ankur Asthana), under Section-138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “NI Act”), dated 03.02.2022. From a perusal of the above noted complaint, it transpires that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund and the said information was given by the complainant to the applicant through registered post on 11.09.2020. In the aforesaid complaint, an order dated 06.10.2020 has been passed by the trial Court directing for appearance of the applicant against which the applicant has filed revision before the learned District and Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short “revisional Court”) and the said criminal revision was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2021. Against the order of revision dated 18.11.2021 passed by the revisional Court quashing the order dated 06.10.2020, the Opposite Party No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court registered as APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 82 of 2022 and this Court passed an order dated 25.01.2022 modifying the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2021 passed by Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 1 Sultanpur to the extent that the petitioner (opposite party no.2 herein) was permitted to file a fresh petition before the learned trial Court within a period of one month and the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

6. It is also stated that the opposite party n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top