Cheque Dishonour Cases: Trial Court Must Condone Delay Before Taking Cognizance, Supreme Court Holds

The Supreme Court on January 6, 2026 held that a trial court must first condone any delay in filing a cheque dishonour complaint before taking cognizance of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

“The power conferred upon the court to take cognisance of a belated complaint is subject to the complainant first satisfying the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within time. The satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of the delay, must therefore precede the act of taking cognisance,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said.

The judgment came in a criminal appeal filed by S Nagesh, where the court found that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before condoning a delay of two days in filing it. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order which had refused to quash the complaint.

Court noted that, ordinarily, a proceeding filed with a limitation-related delay does not become a regular matter on a court’s file unless the delay is first condoned. Referring to Order XLI Rules 3A and 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the bench observed that this position is well established even in the context of delayed civil appeals.

The appellant was aggrieved by the High Court’s view that the two-day delay in filing the complaint was bonafide and that cognizance had rightly been taken.

As per the facts, respondent Shobha S Aradhya and her husband had lent Rs 5,40,000 as financial assistance for the purchase of a house. The cheque issued towards repayment was dishonoured in 2013 due to insufficient funds.

When the complaint was filed, it was stated to be within the limitation period, and the Magistrate took cognizance. However, a successor Magistrate later noted that there was a delay of two days in filing the complaint. Since cognizance had already been taken, court allowed the accused to raise the issue during trial.

In 2016, the Magistrate formally condoned the delay, holding it to be bonafide on the ground that the complainant had suffered from viral fever, as supported by a medical certificate.

Challenging this, the appellant approached the High Court, arguing that cognizance could not have been taken before condoning the delay.

The High Court, however, relied on the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act, which empowers a court to take cognizance of a complaint filed beyond the prescribed one-month period if sufficient cause is shown. It held that the legislature had expressly granted courts the power to take cognizance of a belated complaint once sufficient cause was established. The High Court further observed that taking cognizance without first condoning the delay was only a curable irregularity.

It also noted that since the complaint related to the year 2013 and had been pending for over 11 years, a delay of two days was not of any real consequence.

Examining the matter, the Supreme Court referred again to the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act and held that its language was clear and unambiguous. It reiterated that the complainant must first satisfy the court regarding sufficient cause for the delay, and only thereafter can cognizance be taken.

The bench held that the High Court’s approach of treating the condonation of delay and taking of cognizance as interchangeable steps was contrary to the mandate of the law.

“We may note that 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,” the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint pending before the Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysore.

Case Title: S Nagesh Vs Shobha S Aradhya

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe