Accused Must Be Heard Before Condoning Delay In Cheque Bounce Complaint: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) cannot be decided without hearing the accused.

The Court said Section 142(1)(a) governs cognizance, while Section 142(1)(b) prescribes the limitation for filing the complaint, hence, the proviso allowing delayed cognizance cannot be read separately and the accused must be heard on condonation.

Justice Brij Raj Singh made the observation while setting aside the Magistrate's November 26, 2025 order condoning the delay and June 1, 2026 summoning order in the Section 138 NI Act complaint. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.

"Section 142(1)(a) of the NI Act, which has an overriding effect, clearly postulates the conditions under which cognizance can be taken. Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act cannot be read in isolation. The provisions of Sections 142(1)(a) and 142(1)(b) are interlinked, and in case there is any violation, the accused and the complainant, both, have right to be heard before taking a decision on the application for condonation of delay.", the Court said.

The complainant filed the cheque bounce complaint on June 4, 2025, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The Magistrate took cognizance the same day without first deciding the delay application and subsequently allowed the application on November 26, 2025.

The accused was summoned on June 1, 2026. Before the High Court, The accused argued that he was not given notice or an opportunity to oppose the delay, while the complainant and State argued that the issue was between the complainant and the Court.

Examining the legal provisions governing the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court noted that Section 142(1)(b) prescribes that a Section 138 complaint must ordinarily be filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises, subject to condonation where sufficient cause is shown.

The Court held that audi alteram partem, the cardinal principle requiring the other side to be heard, gives the accused a right to oppose the condonation application.

"The accused has a right to be heard in view of the provisions of Section 142A read with Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Audi alteram partem is a cardinal principle which provides a right of hearing to a party in the proceedings of a case. This cardinal principle cannot be taken away from the applicant."

It therefore observed that this right cannot be taken away before deciding whether the delayed complaint should be entertained.

The Court therefore set aside the impugned orders and directed the Magistrate to hear both parties on the application for condonation of delay and decide it independently.

For Applicant: Advocates Abhinav Anand Verma, Jayant Pratap Singh

For Respondent: G.A., Mohd. Mansoor, Sabir Ali