Cheque bounce complaint (s.138 NI Act):
how long do you have?
Last reviewed: 2026-08-19 · quoted from the India Code bare-Act PDF
Not a Limitation Act Schedule article. This deadline is fixed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 does not govern it — the period, its starting point, and whether any delay can be condoned all come from the statute's own text, quoted below.
Notice clock: 'the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid'. Cause of action for the complaint: the drawer's failure to pay 'within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice' — the complaint must follow 'within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c)'.
The statutory text
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ss.138 proviso & 142(1)(b) — NOT a Limitation Act Schedule articleProvision: s.138 proviso: '(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.' s.142(1)(b): 'such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138: Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.'
Period: Chained deadlines: presentation within the cheque's validity (or six months, whichever is earlier); written demand notice within thirty days of the bank's return memo; drawer's fifteen-day payment window; complaint within ONE MONTH of the cause of action arising — the delay in filing the complaint being condonable for sufficient cause.
Time from which period begins to run: Notice clock: 'the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid'. Cause of action for the complaint: the drawer's failure to pay 'within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice' — the complaint must follow 'within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c)'.
Open the bare Act on India Code →
In plain English
The cheque-bounce criminal timeline runs in four steps: present the cheque within its validity (the statute says six months; in practice banks honour cheques for 3 months under an RBI direction — a central-bank instruction, not the section, so verify the current direction); send the written demand notice within 30 days of learning of dishonour; wait out the drawer's 15-day payment window; then file the complaint within one month of the 15 days expiring. Note the statute says 'one month', not 30 days, and — unusually for a criminal provision — late complaints can be entertained on sufficient cause.
Where this comes up
- Supplier's cheque returned 'funds insufficient'; notice and complaint clock management
- Cheque presented multiple times — cause of action arises only once per notice, so the notice decision is strategic
- EMI/security cheques dishonoured
What can reset or extend this period
General rules for deadlines that live outside the Limitation Act Schedule. The specifics for this deadline are in the quoted statutory text above.
The Limitation Act applies only as far as this statute allows
Under the s.29(2) scheme, a special law's own limitation regime governs, and it can exclude s.5 condonation expressly or by its scheme — the Arbitration Act's 'but not thereafter' and the IBC's fifteen-day cap operate as hard ceilings, while the Consumer Protection Act builds its own condonation into s.69(2). Read the quoted statutory text above; the Schedule's rules do not simply carry over.
Frequently asked
Can I present the cheque again if I missed the notice deadline?
Yes — a cheque may be re-presented within its validity, and a fresh dishonour gives a fresh 30-day notice window. But once a notice is given and the 15 days lapse, that cause of action crystallises; you cannot generate a second cause of action on the same notice.
Is the one-month complaint deadline extendable?
Yes — the proviso to s.142(1)(b) lets the court take cognizance later if you show sufficient cause for the delay.
Is the money claim itself also time-bound?
The civil claim on the underlying debt or on the cheque follows the Limitation Act (e.g. three years under the relevant Schedule article); s.138 is the criminal track and the debt must be legally enforceable — i.e. not time-barred — when the cheque was issued.
This is a reference to the statutory text, not advice on a live matter. Limitation is brutally fact-sensitive — when the cause of action accrued, whether an acknowledgment or part-payment reset the clock, and which exclusions under ss.4-15 apply all turn on your specific facts. This page is a reference to the statutory text, not advice on a live matter, and it does not create an advocate-client relationship. A single day's error can be fatal to a claim: s.5 condonation never applies to suits, and several special-statute deadlines (Arbitration s.34(3), IBC s.61(2)) are hard ceilings no court can extend. Verify every period against the bare Act as currently amended and against current case law, and take advice on your own facts before acting. Provisions here were reviewed on 19 August 2026.