KARTIK HARSHAD JHAVERI v. CHARANJIT ARORA AND ANR
Limitation Period for Section 138 NI Act Complaints: Exclusion of Time Under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act and Effect of Withdrawn Condonation Applications.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:55472
Decision Date: 16-12-2025
List of Laws
Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963; Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Facts: The Respondent No.1 (complainant) lodged three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ulhasnagar in 2007. The JMFC dismissed the complaints for want of jurisdiction in 2010. The High Court modified this order, directing the JMFC to return the complaints for presentation to the proper court. The complainant then lodged the complaints in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, in 2012, along with applications for condonation of delay. The complainant later withdrew these applications in 2019. The accused then filed applications for dismissal of the complaints, arguing they were barred by limitation. The Magistrate rejected these applications, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.
- Procedural Posture: The accused, aggrieved by the rejection of their applications for dismissal of the complaints by the Additional Sessions Judge, filed Writ Petitions before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Issue: Whether the Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when they were prima facie barred by limitation, especially after the complainant withdrew the applications for condonation of delay; and whether the time during which the complaints were pending before a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded for the purpose of limitation under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Holding: The High Court partly allowed the petitions, quashing the orders of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, as well as the order allowing withdrawal of the condonation of delay applications. The High Court restored the condonation of delay applications to the file of the Magistrate for a decision on merits.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Magistrate's taking cognizance of the offence did not validate complaints that were prima facie barred by limitation. The Court emphasized the complainant's inaction in taking back the complaints promptly after the High Court's order directing their return. Citing previous Supreme Court decisions, the Court clarified that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, only allows for exclusion of the period during which the matter was pending before a court lacking jurisdiction, not the time elapsed due to the plaintiff's own delay in re-presenting the plaint. The Court also noted that the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the withdrawal of the condonation applications. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to restore the condonation applications and direct the Magistrate to decide them on merits.
🔒 For Members Only