Magistrate cancelled my complaint under section 138 NI Act saying premature

by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Apr 30, 2025 | Criminal Law

Magistrate cancelled my complaint under section 138 NI Act saying premature. I presented the cheque in the bank and that cheque was dishonoured. When I came to know from the bank that the drawer has insufficient money in his bank account the cheque has been bounced. Then I contacted an advocate who prepared the demand notice. That demand notice was delivered to the accused on 10.12.2023. On 25.12.2023 my advocate filed the complaint under Section 138 of the negotiable instrument act. When the court has issued the summon to the accused he approached the court and said that he is willing to pay the cheque amount but without giving sufficient time the complaint was filed. Thereupon the court has dismissed the complaint. The court wrote in the order that complaint has been before date. My advocate says that the complaint is within the time. The magistrate has wrongly cancelled my complaint under Section 138 NI Act saying premature to the offence. I want to take action against the Magistrate. He has no knowledge of law. 

Asked from: Andhra Pradesh

It appears from the facts of your case that the complaint was premature. You filed the complaint before the expiry of fifteen days from the date the accused received the demand notice. The day the notice was sent is excluded.

According to Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an offence is considered to have been committed only if the drawer of the cheque fails to pay the amount within fifteen days of receiving the notice.

If fifteen days have not passed since the receipt of the demand notice, the court has no power to take cognizance of the offence. Such a complaint is considered non est and has no legal effect. The cause of action arises on the sixteenth day from the date of receipt of the notice.

As per Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court cannot take cognizance of the offence until the cause of action has arisen. This principle was established by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey (2014) 10 SCC 713.

You still have the option to file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of the court’s decision. The limitation period starts from the day the Magistrate passed the order in your case, by which your cheque was cancelled.

Related advice in cheque bouce cases:

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

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Can I produce pendrive at the advance stage of trial? I want to prove that the prosecutrix herself involved in sexual relations with me out of her free consent. In the trial the prosecution witness and a few defence witnesses have examined. At the later stage I wanted…

Remedy after dismissal of criminal revision by high court

Remedy after dismissal of criminal revision by high court. I would like to seek your assistance. Discharge petition dismissed in magistrate court. Criminal Revision Case dismissed in High Court. What are the options now? Asked from: Telangana After dismissal of…

Wife committed suicide when I was abroad

Wife committed suicide when I was abroad from last one year. My wife has an extra marital relation with her school time boyfriend. He used to come to our home and he was introduced as her cousin. No inquiry was made towards the reality of that relationship. That…

Protest petition against negative final report

How to move a protest petition against a negative final report? The investigating officer has sent the final report in my case. It was false and frivolous because I have produced enough evidence regarding the commission of offence. Accused are habitual criminals. They…