High Court allows fresh complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, citing Supreme Court's precedent on premature filing.
In a significant legal development, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar Bench, has set aside an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Srinagar, which had dismissed a fresh complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a delay. The High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, ruled in favor of Sheikh Abdul Rehman, the petitioner, allowing him to proceed with his complaint against Ghulam Nabi Kaboo.
The case revolves around three cheques, each amounting to Rs. 11 lakhs, which were dishonored. Initially, Rehman filed a complaint in 2019, which was dismissed in 2023 as premature because it was lodged before the mandatory 15-day period from the date of receipt of the demand notice had elapsed. Subsequently, the High Court, in an earlier appeal, acknowledged the prematurity but left the door open for Rehman to pursue legal remedies.
Following the dismissal, Rehman filed a fresh complaint in 2025 but encountered resistance as the CJM, Srinagar, denied condonation of the delay. The High Court's recent judgment, however, found that the time spent litigating the initial complaint and subsequent appeal should be excluded from the limitation period for filing a fresh complaint. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Yogender Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey, which allows for such exclusions under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Dhar emphasized that the petitioner had acted diligently and that the delay was justifiable. The court noted that the CJM, Srinagar, had not fully appreciated the legal precedents and procedural nuances, leading to a misjudgment. The High Court's ruling mandates a fresh consideration of the complaint on its merits, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases across the jurisdiction.
The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines while also recognizing judicial discretion in matters of delay, particularly when prior proceedings impact subsequent filings.
Bottom line:-
Negotiable Instruments Act - Delay in filing a fresh complaint under Section 138 due to premature filing of the earlier complaint - Time spent in prosecuting the earlier complaint and appeal can be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing the fresh complaint under Section 142(b) of the Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138, 142(b); Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14.
