Complaint Filed Before Expiry of Statutory Notice Period Is Premature and Bars Cognizance Under NI Act.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the expiry of the mandatory 15-day notice period, is maintainable in law

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that a premature complaint is non-est in the eyes of law.

It also directed

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 14.05.2025

the Court granted the complainant liberty to file a fresh complaint if maintainable under the law

01Facts

The petitioner (accused) issued a cheque to Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant), which was subsequently dishonored.

On 19.05.2020, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice demanding payment, which the petitioner received on 04.06.2020

¶ 3

the complainant filed the criminal complaint (Complaint Case No. 224 of 2020) on 18.06.2020—only 14 days after the notice was served

¶ 3, 4

The Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh, took cognizance and subsequently explained the substance of accusation to the petitioner on 14.05.2025

¶ 2

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash the proceedings as premature.

02Issues

i.1. Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the expiry of the mandatory 15-day notice period, is maintainable in law

¶ 4

ii.2. Whether the court is competent to take cognizance of a complaint that does not disclose a cause of action at the time of filing

¶ 4

03Law Applied

Section 138, Proviso (c) and Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, which mandate that a cause of action only arises if the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice

¶ 4

Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey & Anr. (2014), Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jay Prakash M. Shah & Anr. (2009), and Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Ashoka Alloy Steel Ltd. (2006), which collectively establish that a complaint filed before the 15-day expiry is "premature" and the court is barred from taking cognizance as no offence has been committed until that period elapses

¶ 4, 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 142

04Reasoning

The Court observed that since the petitioner received the legal notice on 04.06.2020, the 15-day statutory window for payment expired on 19.06.2020

¶ 4, 6

the cause of action to file the complaint only accrued on 20.06.2020

¶ 6

By filing the complaint on 18.06.2020, the complainant acted before the commission of the offence as defined under Clause (c) of the Proviso to Section 138. Applying the Yogendra Pratap Singh doctrine, the Court reasoned that the Judicial Magistrate committed a "grave illegality" by taking cognizance of a complaint that lacked a valid cause of action at its inception

¶ 6

The Court held that continuing such proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law

¶ 6