The three deadlines that decide whether you have a case at all, why a cheque is valid for three months and not six, where the complaint has to be filed after the 2015 amendment, the two provisions that move money before the case ends, and how these matters actually run in the Delhi courts.
A dishonoured cheque becomes an offence under Section 138 only if three deadlines are kept. The cheque must be presented while it is still valid — in practice three months, not six. A written demand must be sent within 30 days of your being informed by the bank that it bounced. The drawer then has 15 days to pay. Only when those fifteen days pass does the offence come into existence, and the complaint must be filed within one month after that.
Filing early is fatal. A complaint presented before the fifteen days expire is liable to be dismissed and the defect cannot be cured. The earliest safe day is the sixteenth.
Jurisdiction follows your bank, not the drawer. Since 2015 the complaint lies where the branch at which you maintain the account is situated. A Delhi payee files in Delhi. But you cannot manufacture jurisdiction by depositing the cheque elsewhere — a 2025 decision holds that delivery at any branch is deemed delivery to your home branch.
Two provisions move money before the case ends. The court may order interim compensation of up to 20% of the cheque amount once the accused pleads not guilty — discretionary, not automatic. And an appellate court may require a deposit of at least 20% of the amount awarded before hearing an appeal against conviction. Both are missing from almost every guide online.
The offence is non-cognizable — no FIR, only a complaint to a Magistrate — bailable, and compoundable, which is why most of these cases end in settlement.
Everything in this subject begins here. A cheque bouncing is not, by itself, an offence. The offence is constructed out of three periods, and missing any of them ends the matter before it starts.
| # | The deadline | Runs from | Can it be extended? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Present the cheque while it is valid — three months in practice | The date written on the cheque | No |
| 2 | Send the written demand within 30 days | The day you receive information from the bank that the cheque was returned | No |
| 3 | The drawer has 15 days to pay | The day the notice reaches him | No |
| 4 | File the complaint within one month | The day after the 15 days expire | Yes — on showing sufficient cause |
Note also what the 30 days runs from: the day you were informed by the bank, not the date printed on the return memo and not the date on the cheque. Keep the envelope, the SMS or the email in which the bank told you, because that date can matter.
This is the most commonly repeated error about cheques in India, and it appears on pages that otherwise know their subject.
The Act itself speaks of six months "or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier". Those last words are the operative ones. Since 1 April 2012, following a direction of the Reserve Bank of India issued in November 2011, banks are not to pay cheques presented beyond three months from the date of the instrument. The validity is therefore three months, and the section's own wording picks that up.
The notice is the pivot of the whole case, and a defective notice is the most common technical reason these complaints fail.
In 2014 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that a complaint filed before the fifteen-day period expires is liable to be dismissed, that the defect cannot be cured, and that the only course open is to file a fresh complaint — with an application to condone the delay, if by then the month has run.
So the arithmetic has to be done carefully. Count fifteen clear days from the date the notice was received. The offence arises the next day. From that day you have one month.
The section speaks of insufficiency of funds or the amount exceeding the arrangement, but the courts have read it purposively, and the common evasions are covered.
| Return reason | Position |
|---|---|
| Funds insufficient | The core case |
| Account closed | Covered — the Supreme Court so held in 1999 |
| Stop payment | Covered — otherwise, as the Court put it in 1998, the section would be a dead letter |
| Signature does not match | Covered, on a 2012 decision |
| "Refer to drawer" | In practice treated as within the section where it reflects want of funds, but we have not been able to trace a Supreme Court decision squarely on this reason. Ask your advocate rather than relying on a general statement |
| Stale or post-dated, presented out of validity | Not covered — no cause of action |
This was reversed by Parliament and has been refined again recently, so anything written before 2016 — and a good deal written since — is wrong.
In 2014 the Supreme Court had confined jurisdiction to the place of the drawer's bank, which forced payees to travel to wherever the person who gave them a bad cheque happened to bank. Parliament reversed that in 2015. The position now is:
For a Delhi payee that means Delhi, whatever the drawer's address.
Where the same drawer has given several cheques that have all bounced, the law provides for the complaints to be brought before one court rather than scattered.
The complainant starts ahead. The Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or other liability.
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability."
"When an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'."
"The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence."
Three consequences follow, and they cut both ways.
| The defence | Realistic assessment |
|---|---|
| Part payment was made after the cheque was drawn, and not endorsed | Strong. In a 2022 decision the Supreme Court held that the cheque must represent the enforceable debt as at presentation, and that part payment must be endorsed on the instrument. Presenting the unendorsed full-value cheque does not attract the section |
| No legally enforceable debt existed at all | Strong where it can be shown — this is what displaces the presumption |
| The complainant had no capacity to lend the sum alleged | Strong in cash-loan cases; the leading route to rebuttal |
| The notice was defective, or the complaint premature or time-barred | Strong, and purely technical — check the dates first, always |
| The cheque was materially altered | Available, but has to be proved |
| A director was not in charge of the company's business | Available — see the next section |
| "It was only a security cheque" | Weak. Labelling a cheque a security does not change its character; the question is whether a liability existed at presentation |
| "I gave a blank signed cheque" | Weak. A blank leaf voluntarily signed and handed over towards payment attracts the presumption |
| "I never received the notice" | Weak. Service is presumed where it was correctly sent, and the answer is to pay within fifteen days of the summons |
| "I had no reason to believe it would bounce" | Not available — the Act expressly removes it |
| "The loan was in cash above the permitted limit under the tax law" | Weak. A 2025 decision holds the debt remains legally enforceable; the tax law imposes its own penalty, it does not make the debt unenforceable |
This Act is unusual, and it is worth understanding why. Indian penal law generally has no vicarious criminal liability — a director is not criminally liable merely for being a director, and our page on Section 316 BNS explains how that plays out in a breach of trust case. The Negotiable Instruments Act is the exception: it contains an express provision making those responsible for the company's business liable.
But it is not a blank cheque for complainants either. The courts have insisted that:
The person who signed the cheque is in a different position and generally cannot escape on this ground.
This is the provision most likely to cost an accused real money within months of the case starting, and it was absent from every competitor page we examined.
Once the accused pleads not guilty, the court may order him to pay interim compensation to the complainant, not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount, payable within sixty days and extendable by thirty. It is recoverable as a fine. If the accused is acquitted, the complainant repays it with interest at the bank rate.
On whether the power is mandatory, the Supreme Court held: "the word 'may' used in Section 143A, cannot be construed or interpreted as 'shall'."
The court must "prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded".
So the presumption alone does not justify an order. A plausible defence, and the financial position of the accused, are relevant. Against that, directions issued in September 2025 encourage trial courts to order such deposits where appropriate — so expect the application to be made, and expect it to be argued on the merits.
The second money provision, and the one that ambushes people at the appellate stage.
Where a person convicted under Section 138 appeals, the appellate court may order him to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The deposit is in addition to any interim compensation already paid, and it can be released to the complainant during the appeal.
The courts first read the appellate deposit as mandatory, then recognised a narrow exception where the appellate court records reasons for dispensing with it, and a decision in early 2025 confirmed that the discretion survives — refusing it altogether, the Court said, would be a travesty of justice. The publishable position is that the deposit is the norm and waiver a narrow, reasoned exception.
The offence is compoundable, and most of these cases end in settlement rather than judgment. What changed recently is the price of settling late.
In September 2025 the Supreme Court revised the scale that had governed since 2010:
| When the settlement is reached | What is payable |
|---|---|
| Before defence evidence | The cheque amount — no additional cost |
| After defence evidence, before judgment | Cheque amount + 5% |
| Before the Sessions Court or the High Court | Cheque amount + 7.5% |
| Before the Supreme Court | Cheque amount + 10% |
The message is not subtle: settling early is cheaper, and every stage you fight adds to what you pay if you settle in the end anyway.
The same directions asked courts to provide online payment facilities, including QR and UPI, so that an accused who wants to pay can do so at the initial stage and have the matter compounded.
In April 2021 a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court took up the pendency of these cases on its own motion and issued directions. Two of them matter to anyone actually in one of these cases.
| The direction | What it means for you |
|---|---|
| An inquiry shall be conducted where the accused resides outside the court's jurisdiction, and it may be on affidavit and confined to documents | Significant in Delhi, where a great many drawers live elsewhere. It adds a stage before summons issue |
| Magistrates must record reasons before converting a summary trial into a summons trial | Conversion is what makes these cases run for years; it now needs justification |
| A trial court has no inherent power to recall the issue of summons | If summons should not have issued, the trial court cannot undo it. The remedy is the High Court — see our page on Section 528 BNSS |
| The provision allowing a Magistrate to stop proceedings in a summons case does not apply to these complaints | Closes off another route people are sometimes advised to try |
| Service of summons in one complaint arising from a transaction is deemed service for related complaints before the same court | Prevents the same accused being served ten times over |
In 2022 the Court directed a pilot of special courts using retired judicial officers in five States including Delhi. In September 2025 it issued a further set of directions covering electronic service of summons with an affidavit of service, a standardised synopsis in every complaint, online payment facilities, the allocation of digital and physical courts, and monthly High Court committees to promote mediation and Lok Adalats.
Delhi has gone further than most States, and a page written before late 2025 will describe it wrongly.
| Court complex | Broadly serves |
|---|---|
| Tis Hazari | Central and West Delhi |
| Rohini | North and North-West Delhi |
| Karkardooma | East, North-East and Shahdara |
| Saket | South and South-East Delhi |
| Dwarka | South-West Delhi |
| Patiala House | New Delhi district |
Confirm the current allocation and the current digital-court arrangement from the Delhi District Courts website or the filing counter before you travel — this has been changing since September 2025.
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in commercial and recovery matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
The criminal complaint punishes and, through compensation, can return money. But it was not designed as a recovery mechanism, and where the sums are significant it should not be the only thing running.
A summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code lies on a cheque. Its advantage is procedural: the defendant cannot simply file a written statement and settle in for a decade — he must apply for leave to defend, which is granted only on a triable issue and may be made conditional on a deposit.
Both can run at the same time; they are different proceedings seeking different things. Consider running both where:
Where the cheque was given by someone who never intended to honour it in the first place, the facts may also disclose cheating under Section 318 BNS — but note the requirement there of a dishonest intention at the inception, which a bounced cheque by itself does not establish.
Two figures, from the Supreme Court's own judgments, give the scale — and they explain why the courts keep returning to this subject.
Roughly half the cases pending in Delhi's trial courts are cheque-bounce matters. That is worth knowing before you form expectations about speed — and it is also why the courts have built digital courts, pushed electronic service, and priced late settlement the way they have.
Three months from the date on it, not six. The Act still says six months "or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier" — and since 2012 a Reserve Bank of India direction has told banks not to pay cheques presented beyond three months. Those last four words in the section are what give the direction its bite. Any page telling you the Act gives you six months is reading half the proviso.
30 days — and the clock runs from the day you receive information from the bank that the cheque was returned, not from the date on the return memo and not from the date of the cheque. Keep the envelope or the email in which the bank told you.
15 days from when the notice reaches him. Only when those 15 days pass without payment does the offence come into existence.
Within one month of the cause of action — that is, of the day the 15 days expired. Not before. A complaint filed even a day early is liable to be dismissed and the defect cannot be cured; the Supreme Court settled that in 2014. The earliest safe day to file is the sixteenth day after the notice was received.
Not necessarily. The court may take cognizance later if you show sufficient cause. But note the difference: the one-month period for filing is condonable; the 30-day and 15-day periods are not. Those two are part of the offence itself, not a limitation rule.
Since the 2015 amendment, the court where the branch at which you maintain the account is situated — the branch through which the cheque was collected. If you bank in Delhi, you file in Delhi, whatever the drawer's address. Where the cheque was paid over the counter, it is the drawee branch instead.
No. In a decision of November 2025 the Supreme Court held that a cheque delivered at any branch is deemed to have been delivered to the branch where the payee actually maintains the account — the home branch. Depositing it elsewhere does not move jurisdiction. Bring your account statement showing the home branch; it has become a jurisdiction document.
No. It runs only on a complaint by the payee or holder in due course to a Magistrate — there is no FIR. The offence is bailable, and it is compoundable, which is why so many of these matters end in settlement.
Ordinarily not. The Act says the bank's return slip is itself evidence of dishonour and the court shall presume it, so the memo does the work a witness would otherwise have to do. Your own evidence can go in by affidavit.
Yes. Delhi established dedicated Digital NI Act Courts across its judicial districts in November 2020, with e-filing of complaints, digitally signed summons and virtual hearings. Following Supreme Court directions of September 2025, pre-service stages are handled by the digital courts and matters move to physical courts after service. Confirm the current arrangement at the filing counter, because this has been changing.
That the cheque was received for the discharge of a debt or other liability. The Supreme Court held in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) that the presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt. So you start ahead; the accused has to displace it.
On the preponderance of probabilities — not beyond reasonable doubt. He need not enter the witness box, and he may rely on the complainant's own material. The commonest way it is done is by attacking the complainant's capacity to have advanced the money in the first place.
No. The Supreme Court held in 2019 that a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over towards some payment attracts the presumption, and it is for the person who signed it to prove that it was not in discharge of a debt.
That label by itself does not work. The Supreme Court said in 2021 that merely calling a cheque a security does not change its character. What matters is whether a debt or liability existed when it was presented.
This is the strongest defence there is, and most pages miss it. In a decision of 2022 the Supreme Court held that the cheque must represent the enforceable debt as at the date of presentation. Where part payment was made after the cheque was drawn, the holder must endorse it on the instrument; presenting the full-value cheque without that endorsement does not attract the section. For a payee, the lesson is the reverse: endorse the part payment, or take a fresh cheque.
Rarely works. Where the notice was correctly addressed and sent, service is presumed. The Supreme Court has held that a drawer who says he did not receive it can avoid liability by paying within fifteen days of receiving the summons — so the answer to the argument is built into the law.
Yes — interim compensation of up to 20% of the cheque amount, once the accused pleads not guilty. In March 2024 the Supreme Court held that this power is discretionary, not mandatory — the word is "may", and the court must weigh the merits of the complaint against the merits of the defence pleaded. The presumption alone does not justify an order. That said, directions of September 2025 encourage trial courts to use the power where appropriate.
The appellate court may require you to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded. Note the difference from interim compensation: there the 20% is a ceiling on the cheque amount, here it is a floor on the amount awarded. The deposit is the norm; courts retain a narrow discretion to waive it for recorded reasons.
Yes — the offence is compoundable, and most of these matters end that way. In September 2025 the Supreme Court revised the cost scale: settle before defence evidence and the full cheque amount suffices with no additional cost; after defence evidence but before judgment, an additional 5%; before the Sessions Court or High Court, 7.5%; before the Supreme Court, 10%.
Yes. Because the offence is compoundable it qualifies for Lok Adalat, and the Delhi High Court held in 2017 that these cases can be referred to mediation, describing them as civil cases masquerading as criminal cases. A settlement reached there is recorded by the court, and the criminal case is closed on its terms.
Often, yes. A summary suit on the cheque under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code puts the defendant to the trouble of seeking leave to defend, and it can run alongside the criminal complaint. Consider it where the amount is large, where the debt exceeds the cheque, where interest matters, or where a part-payment problem may sink the complaint.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us the date on the cheque and the date the bank returned it. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.