Supreme Court Holds That Cognizance of a Belated Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Is Impermissible Unless Delay Is Condoned First Under Proviso to Section 142(1)(b)

Case Name: S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya
Citation: 2026 INSC 27
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 January 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe

Held: The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot lawfully take cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the complaint is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period unless the delay is first condoned upon the complainant satisfying the Court of sufficient cause under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b), and any cognizance taken prior to such condonation is without jurisdiction.

Summary: The appellant challenged the refusal of the Karnataka High Court to quash a cheque dishonour complaint where cognizance had been taken on the very day of filing despite a delay of two days beyond the statutory period. The complainant later sought condonation of delay, which the Magistrate allowed several years after cognizance had already been taken. The High Court upheld this approach, treating the sequence of condonation and cognizance as interchangeable and the initial defect as a curable irregularity. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 142 of the NI Act, its proviso inserted by the 2002 amendment, and the scheme of limitation-linked proceedings, and held that the statutory mandate requires condonation of delay to precede cognizance. It further noted that the complainant’s incorrect assertion of timely filing had misled the Magistrate and that the High Court’s reasoning diluted the clear legislative command.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 28.06.2024 was set aside, and the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013 (CC No. 1439 of 2014) pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysore, was quashed in its entirety, with all pending applications disposed of.