Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 · Chapter XVII: Of Penalties in Case of Dishonour of Certain Cheques for Insufficiency of Funds in the Accounts
Section 142: Cognizance of offences
[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;
(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;]
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.].
[(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,—
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation.— For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 142
-
Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal
Whether in the absence of a Trust being made an accused in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when a Cheque has been issued on behalf of a Trust, the said complaint would be maintainable against the…
-
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.
The present appeal has been filed challenging the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent no.1-accused u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and…
-
Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul
When the amount mentioned and demanded in the notice sent under Proviso (b) to s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, is different from the amount for…
-
Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.
When can amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance is taken; whether on facts, any prejudice would be caused to the accused-respondents if the amendment to the complaint, as prayed, is allowed.
-
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Issue arose whether a complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in exercise of powers…
-
M/s Naresh Potteries v. M/s Aarti Industries and Another
Issue arose as regards whether the complaint filed by the appellant u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in accordance with the requirement u/s.142 of the NI Act.
-
Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa
Whether the High Court had rightly affirmed the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case moved for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by its judgment dated 03.03.2023.
-
Susela Padmavathy Amma v. M/S Bharti Airtel Limited
The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing of criminal complaints qua the appellant in connection with the offence punishable u/s. 138 r/w. s.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
-
K. Hymavathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh &
High Court if justified in quashing the criminal proceedings filed by appellant against respondent No.2-accused u/ss.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that it was a fit case for quashing since…
- Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism
- Yogesh Upadhyay and Anr. v. Atlanta Limited
- Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U. P. & Another
- M/S Trl Krosaki Refractories Ltd v. M/S Sms Asia Private Limited & Anr.
- Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr.
- P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
- Shailendra Swarup v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
- N Parameswaran Unni v. G Kannan and Another
- M/S Bridgestone Indiapvt. Ltd v. Inderpal Singh
- A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- J.V. Baharuni & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey & Anr.
- Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Indian Bank Association and Others v. Union of India and Others
- Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.
- A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India P. Ltd v. Sukarsh Azad & Anr
- Econ Antri Ltd. v. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr.
- M/S. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors.
- Rev. Mother Marykutty v. Reni C. Kottaram & Another
- Msr Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr.
- Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey & Anr.
- Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan & Anr.
- M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore
- Raj Kumar Khurana v. State of (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
- National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.
- S.L. Construction & Anr. v. Alapati Srinivasa Rao & Anr.
- Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr.
- D. Purushotama Reddy & Anr. v. K. Sateesh
- M/S Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
- S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by His Lrs. & Ors.
- Anil Kumar Goel v. Kishan Chand Kaura
- M/S. Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yash Pal Singh and Anr.