In a significant ruling that clarifies the procedural requirements for cheque dishonour cases, the Supreme Court of India has held that a trial court cannot take "cognizance" of a delayed complaint without first formally condoning the delay.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, in its judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, emphasized that the satisfaction of the court regarding "sufficient cause" for a delay must precede the official act of starting the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court was examining the interplay between Section 138 (Cheque Dishonour) and Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. Under Section 142, a complaint must typically be filed within one month of the cause of action. However, a "proviso" (an exception) allows the court to accept a late complaint if the complainant shows "sufficient cause."

The Bench noted:

"The power conferred upon the court to take cognisance 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. The satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of the delay, must therefore precede the act of taking cognisance."

The Court observed that this is not a mere "interchangeable exercise." In simpler terms, a Magistrate cannot "cure" the mistake of taking cognizance early by condoning the delay years later.

The matter arose from a criminal appeal filed by S. Nagesh. The respondent, Shobha S. Aradhya, and her husband had lent ₹5,40,000 to Nagesh for the purchase of a house in 2010. A cheque issued by Nagesh in 2013 was returned by the bank due to "insufficient funds."

When the complaint was filed in 2013, the complainant claimed it was within the limitation period. The Magistrate, believing this statement, took cognizance immediately. However, a successor Magistrate later discovered that the complaint was actually late by two days.

Instead of dismissing the case or immediately addressing the delay, the court allowed the case to proceed, granting the accused the right to "contest the delay" during the trial. It was only in 2016—three years later—that the Magistrate formally condoned the delay after the complainant produced a medical certificate citing viral fever.

The accused challenged this before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the entire proceeding was invalid because the delay wasn't condoned before the case started.

The High Court, however, dismissed the petition. It held that taking cognizance without first condoning the delay was merely a "curable irregularity." The High Court reasoned that since the case had already been pending for 11 years, a two-day delay was of no real consequence and the interests of justice favored continuing the trial.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s "lenient" approach. Referring to well-established principles in civil law (Order XLI of the CPC), the Bench noted that a delayed matter doesn't even technically "exist" on the court’s regular file until the delay is condoned.

The Bench highlighted three major points:

Mandate of the Law: The language of Section 142(1)(b) is "clear and unambiguous." Condonation must come first.
Responsibility of the Complainant: The Court pointed out that the complainant herself was responsible for the confusion (the "imbroglio") because she wrongly stated in her initial filing that the complaint was within the time limit.
Not a Curable Irregularity: The Court held that jumping the gun and taking cognizance before deciding on the delay is a fundamental procedural error, not something that can be fixed later in the trial.

The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order and quashed the criminal complaint pending before the Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore.

By quashing the 11-year-old case, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message to trial courts across India: Procedural discipline is mandatory. When a complaint is filed late—even by just two days—the very first step for the Magistrate is to hear the application for condonation of delay. Only if and when that delay is condoned can the court legally "take cognizance" of the offence.

Case Details:

Case Title: S. Nagesh Vs. Shobha S. Aradhya
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18127 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
Citation: 2026 INSC 27