A Section 138 complaint filed beyond limitation without condonation is liable to be quashed.

The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The statutory notice was received on 14 November 2023; the High Court held that the 15-day payment period expired on 29 November 2023 and that the cause of action arose on 30 November 2023.

It calculated the one-month complaint period as expiring on 29 December 2023.

The complaint was e-filed on 2 January 2024, and no application to condone delay had been filed.

The complainant asserted that he had physically presented the complaint on 29 December 2023 but had been directed by the Registry to e-file it.

The Court found no contemporaneous filing receipt, diary number, endorsement, or other court record substantiating that assertion.

The accused sought quashing of the pending proceedings on limitation grounds.

1. Whether the Section 138 complaint, e-filed on 2 January 2024 without an application to condone delay, was barred by limitation under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Whether the complainant’s assertion of physical presentation on 29 December 2023 could establish timely filing in the absence of contemporaneous court records.

Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a Section 138 complaint to be made within one month from the date the cause of action arises under Section 138(c); its proviso permits cognizance after that period only where the complainant satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for the delay.

The Court also relied on H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. MSN Woodtech, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 889, for the principle that a complaint filed beyond the prescribed period requires an application disclosing reasons for delay and judicial consideration of whether condonation is justified.

Applying its calculation of the statutory periods, the Court found that the filing deadline was 29 December 2023, but the complaint was e-filed on 2 January 2024, four days late.

The complainant’s claim of physical presentation within time was unsupported by any contemporaneous court record and could not, by itself, establish timely filing.

As no delay-condonation application had been filed, the delay remained uncondoned; the Court considered the Supreme Court authority applicable and concluded that allowing the complaint to continue would amount to an abuse of process.