The Karnataka High Court ruled that in a cheque bounce, cheque drawer cannot avoid prosecution just because the initial complaint was filed before the 15-day statutory period under Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held that even if the first complaint is premature, the complainant can file a second, valid complaint on the same facts. The case involved Arumugam, who was convicted under Section 138. He argued that the complaint was premature, as it was filed on 13.01.2016, just 12 days after he received the demand notice on 01.01.2016. The court noted that under Section 138(c), a complaint is valid only if the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving the notice. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey (2015), the High Court said the first complaint was invalid but a fresh complaint could be filed.
It gave the complainant liberty to file a new complaint within a month, and stated that any delay would be condoned under Section 142(b) of the Act. The trial court must hear the fresh case within six months. The court disposed of the petition.
