Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals against Delhi High Court’s decision, whereby the Trial Court’s decision to discharge the accused-husband of the offences under Sections 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was set aside, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that the allegations made by the wife were generic and unsubstantiated, and no prima facie case of cruelty was made out. It further clarified that the complaint filed in 2002 was within the limitation period as per Section 468 of the CrPC and quashed the proceedings in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Factual Matrix
The wife filed a complaint against the husband for offences under Section 498-A IPC read with Sections 406 and 34 IPC, alleging cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and his family. She claimed physical and mental harassment, including specific instances in 1999 when she was allegedly beaten, threatened with a dagger, and thrown out of the matrimonial home. The complaint also detailed post-pregnancy neglect and repeated threats.
The Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges under Section 498-A IPC. The Sessions Court, however, discharged the accused citing delay and absence of condonation under Section 473 CrPC, questioning the credibility of allegations, especially given that the complainant was a trained police officer. The High Court reversed this, holding that the Sessions Court had adopted a perverse approach.
Analysis and Decision
The Court found the allegations vague and unsupported by any concrete evidence or medical reports. The FIR contained only broad accusations with no specifics regarding time, place, or events that could legally establish cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The Court emphasised that mere omnibus allegations against multiple relatives, including five sisters-in-law and even a tailor, without substantiation, cannot justify prosecution.
Citing K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 960, the Court reiterated that distant relatives should not be proceeded against without specific allegations. It noted that while being a police officer does not exclude the possibility of victimization, judicial decisions must rest on material evidence.
On the limitation issue, the Court overruled the Sessions Court’s interpretation, relying on Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 and Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 to clarify that the limitation under Section 468 CrPC is to be computed from the date of filing of the complaint, not the date of cognizance.
Importantly, the Court cautioned against the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, stressing that it was rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor were arrayed as accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse legal provisions has time and again been condemned by the Court.
Invoking Article 142, the Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet in the interest of justice, observing that continuation of trial after more than two decades would be unjust.
[Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, Decided on: 04-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Yusuf, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mr. Saif Ali, Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Adv. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pranav Menon, Adv. Mr. Saurav, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
