COVID-19 limitation orders do not bar a valid Section 138 cheque bounce complaint filed after statutory notice expires.

COVID-19 limitation extensions for instituting proceedings did not bar a properly filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A complaint presented after service of statutory notice, after expiry of the notice period, and within the cheque's validity period was not premature, and the summoning order was therefore not illegal on that ground. The limitation orders were intended to protect litigants needing to institute proceedings, not to confer immunity on a cheque drawer or enlarge the time to avoid prosecution. The prematurity argument was also rejected because the complaint was not filed before the notice period expired.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order were liable to be quashed as premature on the ground that the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation orders protected the accused and barred institution of the complaint during the excluded period.

Analysis: The complaint was instituted after service of the statutory notice and after expiry of the notice period, and the cheque had been presented within its validity period. The limitation orders passed in the COVID-19 suo motu proceedings were directed to extend or exclude periods of limitation for the benefit of litigants who had to institute proceedings, and they did not create any embargo on filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The later orders relied upon by the petitioner also used the expression relating to institution of proceedings and did not enlarge the time available to an accused to avoid prosecution. The challenge based on prematurity was also inconsistent with the object of Section 138, which is to promote credibility of cheques and discourage dishonour. The reliance on premature complaint precedent was rejected because the complaint in the present case was not filed before the notice period expired.

Conclusion: The complaint was not premature and the summoning order was not illegal on the ground urged; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: COVID-19 limitation extensions granted for instituting proceedings under general and special laws do not suspend or bar a properly instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or confer immunity on the drawer of the cheque.

---