Section 138 NI Act proceedings require a complaint, not registration of an FIR.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Balliguda P.S. Case No. 198 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 369 of 2025, pending before the learned SDJM, Balliguda.

The case alleged cheating of approximately Rs.29 lakhs—Rs.22 lakhs from the informant and Rs.7 lakhs from her friend—under Sections 318(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner contended that the relevant cheques had been issued by his mother and dishonoured, and that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act could only be initiated by a complaint, not through an FIR.

The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that prima facie material disclosed the petitioner’s involvement in cheating.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 16 December 2025; three seizure witnesses had reportedly been examined, investigation was complete, and he had not been charge-sheeted under Section 138 of the NI Act.

1. Whether an FIR is maintainable for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, or whether the statutory complaint procedure must be followed.

2. Whether, having regard to the nature of the alleged offences, the petitioner’s period of custody, the stage of the proceedings, and the applicable bail principles, the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It considered Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, under which prosecution for cheque dishonour is to be instituted by a complaint in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure, rather than by registration of an FIR.

The Court also considered Sections 318(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, noting that the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and did not prescribe punishment exceeding seven years.

In determining bail, the Court relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, concerning the appropriate approach to arrest and bail, particularly in cases involving offences punishable up to seven years.

The Court observed that an FIR was not maintainable for the alleged Section 138 NI Act offence and that the complainant was required to adopt the complaint procedure prescribed by the statute.

However, the petitioner had not been charge-sheeted under Section 138, and the case also involved separate allegations under the BNS provisions.

For the purpose of bail, the Court considered that the petitioner had been in custody since 16 December 2025, three seizure witnesses had already been examined, investigation had been completed, and the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years.

Applying the principles in Satender Kumar Antil, the Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.