Premature cheque dishonour complaint is not maintainable before expiry of the statutory payment period after notice.

A complaint for cheque dishonour was held premature where it was filed before expiry of the statutory 15-day period after service of demand notice. The court applied the settled principle that no offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act is complete, and no cause of action arises, until the drawer is allowed the full payment period; a complaint lodged earlier is therefore not maintainable. On that basis, the cognizance, summons, and all proceedings founded on the premature complaint were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed before expiry of the statutory 15-day period after service of notice is maintainable and whether the cognizance, summons and resulting proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The complaint was instituted before the drawer could complete the 15-day period permitted for payment after receipt of notice. The governing rule, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, is that no offence under Section 138 is complete and no complaint can be maintained until that period expires, because service of notice and the lapse of the payment period are part of the cause of action. A complaint filed earlier is premature and cannot sustain criminal proceedings.

Conclusion: The complaints were premature and the impugned orders, along with the proceedings arising from them, were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not maintainable if filed before expiry of the statutory 15-day period after service of demand notice, and proceedings founded on such a premature complaint are liable to be quashed.

---