Latest Law Post

S. Nagesh vs. Shobha S. Aradhya
​Citation: 2026 INSC 27
​Court: Supreme Court of India
​Date of Judgment: January 6, 2026
​Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe.

​Key Legal Point

​The Supreme Court held that in a cheque bounce case (Section 138 NI Act), the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a complaint filed after the limitation period unless and until the delay has been formally condoned. Condonation of delay is a condition precedent to taking cognizance.

​Facts of the Case

​Loan and Dishonour:
The Respondent (Complainant) lent ₹5,40,000 to the Appellant (Accused). The Appellant issued a cheque which was dishonoured for insufficient funds on 17.07.2013.

​Filing of Complaint:
The Complainant sent a legal notice but received no payment. She filed a complaint on 09.10.2013.
​The Delay: There was a delay of two days in filing the complaint beyond the statutory period.

​Magistrate's Error:
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 09.10.2013 (the same day filed) without noticing the delay and without any application for condonation of delay at that stage.

​Later Condonation:
The delay was condoned by the Magistrate years later, on 30.10.2018, long after cognizance had already been taken.

​High Court View:
The High Court dismissed the Appellant's petition, holding that taking cognizance before condoning the delay was a "curable irregularity" since the delay was eventually condoned.

​Issue Before the Supreme Court
​Can a Magistrate take cognizance of a delayed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without first condoning the delay?.

​Supreme Court's Decision and Reasoning
​Mandatory Procedure:
Under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act, a court can only take cognizance of a delayed complaint if the complainant satisfies the court that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay.

​Sequence of Events:
The Court ruled that satisfaction regarding sufficient cause (condonation of delay) must precede the act of taking cognizance. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance first and condone the delay later.

​Legal Status of Delayed Complaint:
A complaint filed with a delay does not become a "regular matter" on the court's file until that delay is condoned.

​Rejection of High Court View:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the order of proceedings (condonation vs. cognizance) was interchangeable. The Magistrate acted without jurisdiction by taking cognizance before condoning the delay.
​Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the complaint against the Appellant was quashed.