NI Act | Single Complaint For Dishonour Of More Than Three Cheques Maintainable If Covered By Consolidated Demand Notice: J&K High Court

While dismissing a petition challenging a complaint under the NI Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that a single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques is maintainable if a consolidated demand notice is issued and remains unpaid beyond the statutory period.

“The issue as to whether a single complaint would be maintainable in respect of more than three cheques has been dealt with by various High Courts of this Country and it has been the consistent view of the Courts that a single complaint in respect of dishonour of more than three cheques is maintainable if a consolidated notice of demand is served upon the accused”, Justice Dhar opined.

The dispute arose when the respondent, Tariq Ahmad Wani, entered into an agreement with the petitioner, Fayaz Ahmad Rather, for the purchase of a piece of land for ₹20 lakh. However, during verification, it was discovered that the land was mortgaged with a bank. Consequently, the respondent requested the petitioner to refund the sale consideration.

To repay the amount, the petitioner issued four post-dated cheques of ₹5 lakh each. However, when the respondent presented these cheques for encashment on they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, a single legal notice was sent to the petitioner, demanding repayment within fifteen days. As the petitioner failed to make the payment, the respondent filed a complaint before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge), Pulwama, which took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner.

Aggrieved, the petitioner, represented by Advocate M. Amin Khan, argued that the complaint was not maintainable as it combined four separate instances of cheque dishonour, thereby violating Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). According to this provision, no more than three offences of the same kind committed within a year can be tried together. The petitioner asserted that each dishonoured cheque constituted a distinct offence and, therefore, the respondent was required to file separate complaints.

On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Advocate Syed Sajad Geelani, countered that a single complaint was legally permissible as all four cheques were issued for the same transaction, and a consolidated legal notice had been served. The respondent submitted that the cause of action did not arise merely upon dishonour but upon failure to pay the demanded amount within the statutory fifteen-day period.

Justice Dhar, while examining the petition, reiterated the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act:

1. The cheque must be issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
2. The cheque must be dishonoured due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged amount.
3. A demand notice must be served on the drawer within thirty days of dishonour.
4. The drawer must fail to make the payment within fifteen days of receipt of the demand notice.

“All the aforesaid four requirements have to be satisfied for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thus, unless a demand notice is served by the payee upon the drawer of the cheque after receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque and the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within fifteen days despite receipt of such notice of demand, the offence under Section 138 NI Act would not be complete”, the court explained.

The mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque does not itself give rise to a cause of action; rather, it is the drawer's failure to make the payment within fifteen days of receiving the demand notice that constitutes the offence.

Justice Dhar observed that in the present case, a single demand notice was served on the petitioner for all four dishonoured cheques, and the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated time. Consequently, a single cause of action arose, making the complaint legally sustainable, he underscored.

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's order in Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat (2019), relied upon by the petitioner, noting that it dealt with consolidation of multiple complaints, rather than the maintainability of a single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques.

Dismissing the petition, the Court held that Section 219 CrPC was not applicable as only one offence was committed when the petitioner failed to pay the demanded amount within fifteen days of receiving the joint legal notice.

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Tariq Ahmad Wani

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 87

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment