Cognizance Before Condonation Is Invalid(section 138 N.I.Act)

Case Brief: S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya (2026 INSC 27)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar & Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: 6 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 27

Facts of the Case

• The appellant, S. Nagesh, borrowed ₹5,40,000 from the respondent, Shobha S. Aradhya, between 27.01.2010 and 26.07.2010 to buy a house.
• He issued a cheque dated 10.07.2013, which was dishonoured on 17.07.2013 for insufficient funds.
• A legal notice dated 13.08.2013 was sent to the appellant but returned “unclaimed.” The copy sent by courier was deemed served.
• The respondent filed a complaint on 09.10.2013, two days after the limitation period expired under Section 142(b) of the NI Act.
• The Magistrate took cognizance on the same day without condoning delay. Later, by order dated 30.10.2018, the Magistrate condoned the two-day delay, citing the complainant’s illness (viral fever).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of a delayed complaint under Section 138 NI Act before condoning the delay under Section 142(1)(b).
2. Whether such premature cognizance is a curable irregularity or a jurisdictional defect.

Arguments

Appellant (S. Nagesh):

• Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance before condoning delay.
• Relied on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129, emphasizing strict procedural compliance under Section 142.

Respondent (Shobha S. Aradhya):

• Delay of only two days was bona fide.
• Complaint ultimately validated when delay was condoned in 2018.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint, holding:

1. Cognizance Before Condonation Is Invalid:
   • The Court held that condonation must precede cognizance.
   • The Magistrate erred in taking cognizance before satisfying himself of sufficient cause for delay.
2. Interpretation of Section 142(1)(b):
   • The proviso empowers courts to take cognizance after limitation only if satisfied that sufficient cause exists.
   • Hence, satisfaction regarding delay must come before cognizance.
3. Error of the High Court:
   • The High Court’s view that order of cognizance and condonation are “interchangeable” was rejected.
   • Such an approach is contrary to statutory mandate.
4. Analogy from Civil Procedure:
   • The Court cited Order XLI Rules 3A & 5(3) CPC, noting that an appeal or complaint is not treated as validly filed until delay is condoned.
5. Outcome:
   • The complaint (PCR No. 3144/2013; CC No. 1439/2014) stood quashed.

Legal Principles Established

1. Precedence of Delay Condonation:
   • Courts must first decide the condonation of delay before taking cognizance under Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act.
2. Jurisdictional Requirement:
   • Taking cognizance without prior condonation is not a mere irregularity; it is a jurisdictional defect.
3. Purpose of Limitation:
   • Reinforces that limitation under the NI Act ensures procedural discipline in cheque dishonour cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that the sequence of judicial actions matters under Section 142 of the NI Act.

Taking cognizance without first condoning delay vitiates the proceedings. Hence, procedural compliance is essential for valid prosecution under Section 138.