High Court Holds Fresh NI Act Complaint Can Be Filed Within One Month; Rejects Quashing Petitions

A single-judge bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh of the Allahabad High Court heard consolidated petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging summons and the registration of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matters concerned whether a complaint filed before expiry of the 15-day statutory period and subsequent orders permitting refiling were legally sustainable.

The court refused to quash the impugned orders and dismissed both applications, holding that the directions in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey authorised filing a fresh complaint within one month from the date of the decision in the criminal case and that the argument that a fresh legal notice was mandatory in the present circumstances was misconceived. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Section 142 of the NI Act prescribes the mode and so also the time within which a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be filed. ... Now, since our answer to Question (i) is in the negative, we observe that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. ... As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying the court of sufficient cause."

Background The applicant, Ankur Asthana, challenged orders dated 09.02.2022, 17.08.2022 and 04.01.2023 issued by trial courts in Sultanpur directing his appearance in complaints under Section 138 NI Act filed by M/s Kashish Enterprises (Criminal Complaints Nos. 390/2022 and 13/2022). The complaint alleged dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds, with the complainant asserting that statutory notice was served and proceedings were time‑barred or premature in light of the prescribed 15‑day waiting period under the proviso to Section 138 and the one‑month filing window under Section 142(b).

The applicant argued that the trial court had acted illegally by issuing summons and condoning delay while a Section 482 petition (Application No. 1829 of 2022) was pending; counsel relied on Yogendra Pratap Singh (AIR 2015 SC 157) to assert that a complaint presented before expiry of 15 days from service of notice is no complaint at all. The State and the complainant pointed to the revisional court order which had found the earlier complaint premature and directed refiling before the competent court; this Court had earlier modified that revisional order on 25.01.2022 permitting the complainant to file a fresh petition within one month and to be decided strictly in accordance with law.

The High Court examined paragraphs 36–42 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Yogendra Pratap Singh and concluded that where a complaint was filed prematurely, the remedy was to file a fresh complaint within one month of the relevant decision — and if time had lapsed, to satisfy the court of sufficient cause for condonation. The court noted explicitly that "the argument that fresh legal notice is required is misconceived." Applying those principles to the record, the High Court held that the direction already issued permitting refiling within one month remained operative and that the trial court’s subsequent proceedings did not warrant quashing under Section 482. Both applications were therefore dismissed and no costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 692 of 2023 & APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1829 of 2022 Case Title: Ankur Asthana Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Anand Mani Tripathi (Senior Advocate), Anurag Tripathi For the Respondent(s): G.A., Anil Kumar Pandey, Ramakar Shukla; Rao Narendra Singh (A.G.A.)