Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000075-000075 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 52108/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Questions of Law | Whether a court can take cognizance under Section 138 NI Act before condoning delay under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b)? |
| Ratio Decidendi | Interpreting the unambiguous proviso to Section 142(1)(b), the Court held that power to take cognizance of an NI Act complaint beyond one month is conditional on the complainant first satisfying the court that sufficient cause exists for delay. Condonation must therefore precede cognizance; taking cognizance without prior condonation is a jurisdictional error that cannot be cured merely by subsequent condonation post-cognizance. Any irregular cognizance without prior condonation must be quashed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant lent ₹5,40,000 to the accused and received a cheque dated 10 July 2013, which was dishonoured. A legal notice was issued on 13 August 2013. The NI Act complaint was filed on 9 October 2013—two days after the one-month limit—and cognizance was taken the same day without condoning delay. A magistrate subsequently condoned the two-day delay on 30 October 2018, but the Supreme Court held the prior cognizance order void for want of jurisdiction. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) NI Act mandates condonation of any delay in filing beyond one month before cognizance can be taken.
- Holds that taking cognizance without prior condonation is a jurisdictional error not curable by subsequent condonation post-cognizance.
- Overturns the practice of treating belated-cognizance as mere procedural irregularity; establishes mandatory sequencing as binding on subordinate courts.
- Lawyers must ensure delay-condonation orders precede cognizance in cheque-bounce petitions to avoid quashing on jurisdictional grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The proviso to Section 142(1)(b) NI Act requires that any belated complaint (filed after one month under clause (c) of Section 138) can be taken cognizance of only if the complainant first satisfies the court of sufficient cause for the delay.
- The Court compared this requirement with Order XLI Rules 3A and 5(3) CPC, which similarly mandate condonation before an appeal is “entered” on the court file.
- It rejected the High Court’s view that condonation and cognizance can be interchanged, finding such interchange defeats the mandatory legislative sequencing.
- Reliance was placed on the three-Judge precedent in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, which emphasises limitation-linked steps under the NI Act.
- Concluded that the magistrate’s cognizance on 9 October 2013—before condoning the two-day delay—was without jurisdiction and required quashing of the complaint.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused)
- Cognizance under Section 142(1)(b) cannot precede condonation of delay in filing the complaint.
- The magistrate lacked jurisdiction to register a complaint filed beyond the one-month limit without prior condonation.
- Denied liability and urged quashing for procedural irregularity.
Respondent (Complainant)
- Admitted the complaint was filed on 9 October 2013 and cognizance was taken the same day.
- Contended the two-day delay was bonafide and that subsequent condonation cured any defect.
- Relied on the High Court’s view that belated cognizance is only a curable irregularity.
Factual Background
Between January and July 2010 the complainant advanced ₹5,40,000 to the accused for a house and legal expenses. He issued a cheque dated 10 July 2013 in her favour, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A legal notice dated 13 August 2013 was sent and returned unclaimed in part, deemed served by courier. The NI Act complaint under Section 138 was filed on 9 October 2013—two days late—and cognizance was immediately taken by the magistrate, who later condoned the delay on 30 October 2018.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 NI Act creates the offence for dishonour of cheques and prescribes a one-month limit for filing a complaint under the proviso clause (c).
- Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) NI Act empowers courts to take cognizance of a complaint after the one-month period only if “the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.”
- The Supreme Court interpreted this proviso to require that the court’s satisfaction (and thus any delay-condonation) must precede the act of taking cognizance; any other sequence is ultra vires the statute.