Cheque dishonour complaints filed before the statutory notice period expires are invalid, and must be refiled if time allows.

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cognizance cannot be taken on a complaint filed before expiry of the 15-day period after service of notice, because the offence is complete only when that statutory period lapses without payment. Such a premature filing does not disclose an accrued cause of action and is not a complaint in law for cognizance under Section 142. The same complaint cannot later be re-presented after limitation has run; the proper course is to file a fresh complaint, which may be entertained only if delay is condoned under the proviso to Section 142(b) on sufficient cause being shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be taken on a complaint filed before expiry of the 15-day period under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; (ii) If such a complaint is not maintainable, whether the complainant may present the same complaint again after the one-month period under Section 142(b) has expired.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be taken on a complaint filed before expiry of the 15-day period under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 is complete only when all the statutory conditions, including the expiry of 15 days from service of notice without payment, are satisfied. A complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must disclose facts constituting an offence, and Section 142 bars cognizance except upon a written complaint. A complaint presented before the expiry of the 15-day period does not disclose an accrued cause of action and is not a complaint in law for the purpose of Section 138.

Conclusion: No. Cognizance cannot be taken on a complaint filed before expiry of the 15-day period, and the contrary view was overruled.

Issue (ii): If such a complaint is not maintainable, whether the complainant may present the same complaint again after the one-month period under Section 142(b) has expired.

Analysis: The one-month period under Section 142(b) runs from the date on which the cause of action arises. Where the original complaint is invalid because it was filed before the cause of action accrued, the complainant cannot revive the same complaint later. The proper course is to file a fresh complaint, and if it is beyond time, seek the benefit of the proviso to Section 142(b) by showing sufficient cause.

Conclusion: No. The same complaint cannot be re-presented later after expiry of limitation; only a fresh complaint may be filed, subject to condonation under the proviso to Section 142(b).

Final Conclusion: The Court settled the law that a complaint under Section 138 filed before the drawer's 15-day period expires is legally ineffective, and the earlier contrary line of authority was disapproved while the complainant was left to pursue only a fresh complaint within the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cause of action arises only after expiry of the 15-day period following service of notice without payment, and a complaint filed before that stage is no complaint in law for the purpose of cognizance under Section 142.

---