Multiple cheque bounce 138 complaints from one transaction

If you are short on time, jump to the worked example below to see how four post-dated cheques become four separate cases.

Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak sold machinery worth ₹8,00,000 to a buyer. The buyer paid with four post-dated cheques of ₹2,00,000 each, dated for four consecutive months. This is one underlying transaction. But watch what happens when the cheques bounce on different dates.

Cheque 1 is presented in January and returns unpaid for insufficient funds. Dr. Pathak sends a written demand notice within 30 days. The buyer does not pay within 15 days of getting it. The Section 138 offence is now complete for cheque 1. That is cause of action number one.

Cheque 2 is presented in February, bounces, and Dr. Pathak again sends a notice and waits the 15 days. The buyer again does not pay. That is a fresh, separate cause of action for cheque 2. The same happens for cheque 3 in March and cheque 4 in April.

The result: four cheques, four independent cycles, four distinct causes of action. Dr. Pathak can file a separate Section 138 complaint for each one. The fact that all four cheques came from a single ₹8,00,000 deal does not merge them into one case.

The catch is the word “independently.” If you presented all four cheques on the same day, got one common return memo, and sent one notice covering all of them, you have one cause of action, not four. The split into separate cases depends on each cheque finishing its own statutory cycle on its own dates.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 makes it an offence to issue a cheque that bounces for insufficient funds or because it exceeds the arrangement, once two clocks are satisfied.

1. The 30-day notice clock, proviso b. After the bank returns the cheque unpaid, the payee has 30 days from receiving the dishonour memo to send a written demand for the cheque amount.
2. The 15-day payment window, proviso c. The drawer then has 15 days from receiving that notice to pay. The offence is complete only if the drawer fails to pay within those 15 days.

So the cause of action for one cheque arises on the 16th day after the notice is received, when payment has not come. A complaint must then be filed within one month of that date under Section 142(1)(b) of the Act. Each cheque that runs this full course generates its own cause of action with its own dates.

A court can also order interim compensation of up to 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A, payable by the drawer during the trial. This is per complaint, so separate maintainable complaints can each carry this exposure.

In Sumit Bansal vs M/s MGI Developers and Promoters, decided on 8 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India settled this directly. The neutral citation is 2026 INSC 40 and the bench was Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol.

The Court held: “a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a cheque provided the statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure to pay is complete. The fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them into a single cause of action.”

In plain terms: where cheques are presented on different dates, dishonoured separately, and each followed by its own statutory notice, they are distinct causes of action despite a single underlying transaction.

The Court rejected the High Court's quashing of one complaint on a parallel-prosecution theory. It also held that whether the cheques were alternative or supplementary to each other is a question for trial, not a threshold a High Court can use to quash a complaint under Section 482 CrPC. The complaint had to go to trial on its merits.

For the wider sentencing and procedure backdrop, see the Supreme Court guidelines on Section 138 cheque bounce.

1. Map each cheque to its own dates. For every bounced cheque, record the presentation date, the bank return memo date, the notice date, the date the drawer received it, and the day the 15-day window expired. Confirm each cheque completed its own cycle.
2. Send a separate demand notice per cheque cycle. Issue the written notice within 30 days of the dishonour memo for that cheque. Keep proof of dispatch and delivery. See how to send the cheque bounce notice and file the complaint.
3. Wait out the 15-day payment window. The cause of action arises only when the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving the notice. Do not file before that.
4. File within one month of each cause of action. Under Section 142(1)(b), file each complaint in the competent magistrate court within one month of the day the 15-day window expired for that cheque.
5. Keep the complaints consistent. File each as a distinct complaint tied to its own cheque and dates. You can use the step-by-step guide to filing a Section 138 complaint for each one.

For a full walkthrough of the process and your rights, read The RTI Playbook.

• The original bounced cheque
• The bank return or dishonour memo for that cheque
• A copy of the demand notice and proof of dispatch
• Postal or courier delivery proof showing the drawer received the notice
• Proof of the underlying debt or liability, such as the sale invoice or agreement
• Your identity and address proof

• Clubbing cheques that bounced on different dates into one notice when you wanted separate cases. One notice gives one cause of action under proviso b and proviso c.
• Filing before the 15-day window closes. The offence under Section 138 is not complete until the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of the notice.
• Missing the one-month filing limit. Section 142(1)(b) requires the complaint within one month of the cause of action, subject to the court condoning delay for sufficient cause.
• Assuming “one transaction” means “one case.” Sumit Bansal confirms one deal does not merge multiple completed cheque cycles.

To,
[Drawer name and address]

Subject: Statutory notice under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

1. You issued cheque no. [____] dated [____] for Rs [____] drawn on
   [bank].
2. On presentation, the cheque was returned unpaid vide memo dated
   [____] for reason [insufficient funds].
3. Under proviso b to Section 138, I demand payment of Rs [____]
   within 15 days of receipt of this notice, as required by proviso c.
4. On your failure to pay within 15 days, I will file a complaint
   under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act.

[Signature, date]

Yes, when each cheque independently completes its own cycle of presentation, dishonour, a demand notice within 30 days, and the drawer failing to pay within 15 days. Sumit Bansal vs MGI Developers, 2026 INSC 40, confirms that one underlying transaction does not merge several completed cheque cycles into one cause of action. Each completed cycle is a distinct case.

No. The Supreme Court in Sumit Bansal held that the fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them into a single cause of action. What matters is whether each cheque was presented, dishonoured, and followed by its own statutory notice and unpaid 15-day window. If so, each is a distinct cause of action and its own complaint.

It arises on the day the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving your demand notice. You must send that notice within 30 days of the bank return memo under proviso b. The drawer gets 15 days to pay under proviso c. If payment does not come, the Section 138 offence is complete and the cause of action arises the next day.

Under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, you must file within one month of the date the cause of action arose for that cheque. Each cheque has its own one-month window tied to its own dates. Courts can condone delay for sufficient cause, but do not rely on that; file on time. Read the defences available to an accused in a cheque bounce case to understand both sides.

Not on that ground alone. In Sumit Bansal the Supreme Court set aside the High Court quashing one complaint on a parallel-prosecution theory. It held that whether the cheques were alternative or supplementary is a trial question, not a threshold for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The complaint had to be decided on its merits at trial.

A court can order interim compensation up to 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A, payable by the drawer during trial. Because separate maintainable complaints stand on their own, each can carry this exposure. The court decides whether to grant it in each case.

• List every bounced cheque with its presentation, return memo, notice, and 15-day expiry dates.
• Check which cheques completed their own full cycle and can stand as separate complaints.
• Gather the original cheques, return memos, notice copies, and delivery proof for each.
• For any cheque still within its 30-day notice window, send the demand notice today.

• Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Section 138, proviso b and proviso c; Section 142(1)(b); Section 143A.
• Sumit Bansal vs M/s MGI Developers and Promoters, Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 40, decided 8 January 2026, Mishra and Karol JJ.

• How to send the cheque bounce notice and file the complaint
• Step-by-step guide to filing a Section 138 complaint in 2026
• Supreme Court guidelines on Section 138 cheque bounce
• Defences available to an accused in a cheque bounce case