The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by S. Nagesh against the Karnataka High Court order that rejected his petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- The complaint was filed by Shobha S. Aradhya regarding a dishonoured cheque for ₹5,40,000, with a two-day delay in presentation -- The Magistrate took cognizance on 09.10.2013 without condoning the delay initially but later condoned it on 30.10.2018 after considering the complainant's medical certificate showing viral fever -- The High Court upheld this, ruling that the delay was bonafide and the irregularity in taking cognizance before condoning delay was curable under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act -- The Supreme Court agreed, complaint quashed
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Section 482-- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-- Sections 138 and 142-- Dishonour of cheque-- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act filed- Delay of two days in filing complaint - Cognizance taken by Ld. Magistrate without condoning delay in filing complaint-- Petition for quashing of complaint filed by accused-- Dismissal of quashing petition by High court-- Question as to whether cognizance can be taken without condoning the delay in filing complaint?-- Case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (SUpra) referred-- Section 142 of NI Act referred---- Error committed by Ld. Magistrate in taking cognizance of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned-- Complaint quashed-- Appeal Allowed
Para-- 12, 13, 15
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court order that upheld the cognizance taken and condonation of delay in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 22
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.______ of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 18127 of 2024)
Date of Decision: 2026-01-06
Case Title: The Issue of whether cognizance taken without first condoning delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vitiates the proceedings
Before Judge: SANJAY KUMAR J. , ALOK ARADHE J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 27
Appellant: S. Nagesh
Respondent: Shobha S. Aradhya
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal challenging the High Court order that upheld the cognizance taken in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Remedy Sought: The appellant sought quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing that cognizance was taken without first condoning the delay in filing the complaint
Filing Reason: The respondent filed a complaint alleging dishonour of a cheque for ₹5,40,000 issued by the appellant, with the complaint presented two days late due to the respondent's viral fever
Previous Decisions: The Magistrate took cognizance on 09.10.2013 without condoning the delay, later condoned the delay on 30.10.2018, and the High Court rejected the appellant's petition on 28.06.2024, upholding the cognizance and condonation of delay
Issues: Whether cognizance taken without first condoning the delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vitiates the proceedings Whether the delay in filing the complaint was bonafide and properly condoned by the Magistrate
Submissions/Arguments: The appellant argued that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance before condoning the delay, violating statutory procedures under the NI Act The appellant contended that the delay was sixteen days, not two days, and the condonation was without jurisdiction The respondent argued that the delay was two days and bonafide due to viral fever, and the irregularity in cognizance was curable under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act
Ratio Decidendi: Taking cognizance before condoning delay in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a curable irregularity if the delay is subsequently condoned -- The proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act empowers courts to take cognizance of belated complaints upon showing sufficient cause -- Delay in filing a complaint can be condoned if it is bonafide, and such condonation cures any prior procedural irregularity in taking cognizance
Judgment Excerpts: The learned Judge held that, if cognizance is taken without the delay in the presentation of the complaint being condoned, it would only be a curable irregularity -- Para 8 The learned Judge observed that the legislature had conferred express power on the Court to take cognizance even in respect of a belated complaint, if sufficient cause for such belated presentation was established by the complainant -- Para 7 The learned Judge affirmed the condonation of that delay by the learned Magistrate and upheld the cognisance taken, though it was irregular, observing that the said irregularity stood cured on the delay being condoned -- Para 9
Procedural History: The respondent filed complaint PCR No. 3144 of 2013 on 09.10.2013 with a two-day delay -- The Magistrate took cognizance on 09.10.2013 without condoning the delay -- On 23.05.2014, the Magistrate noted the delay and granted liberty to contest it at trial -- On 30.10.2018, the Magistrate condoned the delay after considering a medical certificate -- The appellant filed Criminal Petition No. 9119 of 2018 in the High Court on 06.12.2018 -- The High Court rejected the petition on 28.06.2024 -- The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal, dismissing it on 27.01.2026
