In a significant ruling clarifying the law on limitation under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 if it is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, unless the delay is first condoned by the court. Setting aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the Court emphasised that condonation of delay under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction. Taking cognizance of a time-barred complaint without first condoning the delay was held to be a jurisdictional error, not a mere procedural irregularity, thereby reinforcing strict compliance with statutory timelines in cheque dishonour prosecutions.
Case Title
S. Nagesh vs. Shobha S. Aradhya
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 13
Bench:
- Justice Sanjay Kumar
- Justice Alok Aradhe
Facts of the Case
- A cheque for ₹5.40 lakh was issued on 10 July 2013 and dishonoured on 17 July 2013.
- After issuing a statutory demand notice, the cause of action under Section 138 NI Act arose in late August 2013.
- The complaint was filed on 9 October 2013, which was beyond the 30-day filing period provided under Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act. This made the complaint time-barred at the time it was lodged.
Lower Court Proceedings
- The Magistrate’s Court took cognizance of the complaint on its filing date (October 9, 2013).
- Later, nearly five years after filing, the Magistrate condoned the delay on medical grounds and treated the case as valid.
- The Karnataka High Court upheld this, holding the sequence of taking cognizance before condoning delay was a curable irregularity.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
- Limitation & Condonation Are Jurisdictional:
The Court held that the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) makes clear that:- Cognizance of a late complaint can only be taken after the delay is condoned, and
- Satisfaction about “sufficient cause” for delay must precede cognizance — not follow it.
In simple terms: you cannot first take cognizance and then condone delay; the latter must come before cognizance.
- Premature Cognizance Is Void:
Because the complaint was filed beyond the statutory period and the delay was condoned after cognizance, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction when it first took cognizance.
A later condonation of delay cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. - Not a Curable Irregularity:
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s view that the defect was merely procedural. Instead, it was a fundamental legal requirement — mandating that condonation of delay must precede taking cognizance.
Supreme Court’s Decision
✔ The appeal was allowed.
✔ The complaint was quashed for want of cognizance at the time it was taken.
✔ The Magistrate’s order and the High Court’s affirmation were set aside.
Legal Principle Established
👉 Cognizance cannot be taken of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act if it is time-barred at the time of filing — unless and until the delay is first condoned by the Court on showing sufficient cause.
This interpretation underscores that condonation of delay is a condition precedent to jurisdiction.
Practical Impact
- In cheque dishonour cases, simply filing a complaint outside the limitation period and then moving an application to condone delay later won’t validate the complaint.
-
The Court must first be satisfied about the delay being justified before the complaint is treated as maintainable.