LexS. NAGESH versus SHOBHA S. ARADHYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 183 : 2026 INSC 27 S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya (Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2026) 06 January 2026 [Sanjay Kumar* and Alok Aradhe, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint u/s.138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142 – Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account – Cognizance of offences – Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint u/s.138, before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned – Correctness: Held: Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint u/s.138, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned – It is manifest from the clear and unambiguous language of the proviso to s.142(1)(b) that the power conferred upon the Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint is subject to the complainant first satisfying the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within time – Satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of the delay, must therefore precede the act of taking cognizance – Ordinarily, a proceeding instituted with limitation-linked delay before a Court of law does not actually figure as a regular matter on its file until that delay is condoned – Thus, the approach of the High Court in treating this crucial aspect as a mere interchangeable exercise, either to first condone the delay or to first take cognizance, is not in keeping with the mandate of the proviso – Respondent herself responsible for this imbroglio as she had made a categorical * Author 184 [2026] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports statement in her complaint that it was filed within time, when it was not – Order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the same set aside. [Paras 14, 15] Case Law Cited Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2014] 11 SCR 921 : (2014) 9 SCC 129 – referred to. List of Acts Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Magistrate taking cognizance of complaint u/s.138 NI Act; Delay; Condonation; Belated complaint; Cognizance. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2026 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No. 9119 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Ashwin V. Kotemath, Harisha S.R. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Kumar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 9119 of 2018. This petition was filed by S. Nagesh, the appellant before us, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of [2026] 1 S.C.R. 185 S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya 2013, which was converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore1. The learned Judge rejected the petition, holding that the delay of two days in the filing of the complaint was bonafide and cognizance had rightly been taken. 3. In her complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, Shobha S. Aradhya, the respondent, averred as follows: The appellant had approached her husband and her, seeking financial assistance to purchase a house and to meet legal necessities. They lent him a sum of ₹5,40,000/- between the dates 27.01.2010 and 26.07.2010. He, thereafter, issued cheque dated 10.07.2013 drawn in her name for the said sum, assuring that it would be honoured upon presentation. However, the cheque was dishonoured on 17.07.2013 for insufficiency of funds. She got issued legal notice dated 13.08.2013 calling upon the appellant to pay the cheque amount within 15 days but the same was returned as ‘unclaimed’ on 22.08.2013. However, the copy of the notice sent through courier was not returned unserved and the same amounted to deemed service. However, no payment was made by the appellant. She, thereupon, filed the complaint praying that the Court take cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812, and punish the appellant in accordance with law, apart from awarding her compensatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.