Cheque dishonour case 138 NI Act has been dismissed because of delay in demand notice during covid 19

Cheque dishonour case 138 NI Act has been dismissed because of delay in demand notice during covid 19. I have filed a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act on 12-02-2021 after more than ten months from the date of cause of action. The case was admitted but at the stage of trial […]

Cheque dishonour case 138 NI Act has been dismissed because of delay in demand notice during covid 19. I have filed a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act on 12-02-2021 after more than ten months from the date of cause of action. The case was admitted but at the stage of trial the court has dismissed the complaint because of delay in sending the demand notice to the accused. I have sent the notice to the accused in the month of October 2020 but cheque was bounced on 3rd March 2020. Complaint was filed on 12th February 2021. There was delay but due to covid 19 I was not able to file the case within time. What action should be taken against the dismissal order?

Asked from: Haryana

You should file an appeal before the High Court under section 372 of the code of criminal procedure. The order of dismissal of complaint is erroneous because due to surge of Covid 19 it was not possible to send demand notice. However the cheque was bounced on 3rd March 2020 and lockdown was called on 24th March 2020. During this period you had to send a demand notice, but the time period prescribed for the demand notice is 30 days from the date of dishonour of cheque.

That limitation was come to end on 2nd April 2020. At the that time the lockdown was called. In the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the limitation period for any petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings till 15th March 2021. The court has held that:

In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020

That extension of limitation period is also applicable to the demand notice because it is a statutory requirement that the holder of cheque must send a demand notice to the drawer within thirty days from the date of intimation of dishonour of cheque.

As per the direction of the hon'ble supreme court in the aforementioned case, you are entitled to get the benefits of extension of limitation period. The limitation period was extended within the time period prescribed for issuing demand notice. Your appeal will sustain and the appellate court may set aside the order of trial court.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.