Can A Fresh Cheque Bounce Complaint Be Filed After Withdrawal Of A Premature Complaint? Rajasthan High Court Answers

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the complaint filed in 2016 was time barred and filed without any application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244]

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if an earlier complaint that was found to be premature, was withdrawn by the complainant, the subsequent complaint could not be treated as time barred.

The Court further observed that since the original complaint was filed in 2016, and the present quashing petition was filed at the fag end of the trial, after recording of evidence of both the sides, it could not be entertained.

For context, owing to the cheque-dishonour, complainant had filed a case against the petitioner on May 16, 2016. Since the case was found to be premature, it was withdrawn and another complaint was filed on May 30, 2016.

Cognizance was taken and the proceedings commenced. When the proceedings reached the end, the present petition was filed by the petitioner in 2024, alleging that the original complaint was time barred. Hence, quashing of the proceedings was sought.

This was opposed by the complainant who submitted that after duly participating in the proceedings, when the matter had reached its end, the petitioner could not be allowed to delay the disposal of the complaint by filing the present petition.

After hearing the contention, the Court made reference to certain Supreme Court decisions to hold that subsequent complaint could not be treated as time barred, if the earlier complaint, which was found to be premature, was withdrawn by the complainant.

The Court further highlighted that as per proviso to Section 142, NI Act, a delayed complaint could be filed by the complainant, if the reason of delays were explained and sufficient cause was shown. It was observed that in the present matter, the reasons for delay in filing the second complaint were explained.

The Court also observed that, “instant plea taken by the accused petitioner cannot be allowed to be entertained at the fag end of the trial, when the trial has reached to its final stage, after recording of evidence of both the sides.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: M/s Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244

Click Here To Read/Download Order