Magistrate cancelled my complaint under section 138 NI Act saying premature

A magistrate dismissed a Section 138 NI Act complaint as premature because it was filed before the mandatory fifteen-day notice period expired. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, an offence only occurs if payment is not made within fifteen days of notice receipt. However, the law allows for a fresh complaint within one month of the dismissal order.

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

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.