SUPREME COURT QUASHES 26-YEAR-OLD 498A CASE AND ISSUES STRONG WARNING

GHANSHYAM SONI VS. STATE

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on June 4, 2025, in the case of, Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2894 of 2025 quashing an FIR and chargesheet filed under Section 498A IPC. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma also clarified two pivotal legal questions concerning the limitation and misuse of 498A cases.

FACT OF THE CASE:-

The marriage between the Appellant-husband and the Complainant-wife, Respondent no. 2 herein was solemnized on 28.02.1998 according to Buddhist rites and ceremonies. It is averred that the entire cost of the ceremonies had been arranged by the Complainant, according to the best of their financial abilities. At the time, both the parties were serving as Sub Inspectors with the Delhi Police. It is alleged that soon after her marriage, the Complainant learned about the greedy and abusive nature of the Appellant and his family members, who constantly taunted her and ridiculed her for bringing insufficient dowry. Purportedly, the mother-in-law, Smt. Bhagwati and five of her sisters-in-law, namely Geeta, Lata, Misiya, Hemlata, and Gayatri constantly fueled conflict and instigated the Appellant against the Complainant. The father-in-law hurled abuses at the Complainant and her family, allegedly saying that their family had adopted Buddhism to simply evade the traditions of dowry. The Appellant and his family consistently raised demands for more dowry and allegedly made a specific demand for Rs. 1.5 Lakhs in cash, a Car, and a separate house for the Appellant amongst other petty things. The Complainant averred that despite serious effort, her father was unable to meet the said demands which led to her being subjected to serious physical & mental atrocities at the hands of her husband and in-laws. It is alleged that on 27.04.1999, the Appellant's husband and her mother-in-law, Smt. Bhagwati had beaten up the Complainant with fists and blows for not fulfilling their needs. The Complainant who hurt her wrist in the incident, had to put on a bandage for a month, and her parents took her to their house, where she remained on medical rest for twenty days. However, even after her return from her parental home with Rs. 50,000/- in cash, her late father-in-law and her sisters-in-law (except one) berated her for her inability to fulfill their demands and being a burden on the family. On 04.09.1999, the Appellant allegedly took out a dagger and threatened the Complainant that he would kill her if she failed to fulfill the demands, particularly that of his sister. It is alleged that on 05.09.1999, the sister-in-law, Ms. Lata had allegedly threatened the Complainant in front of the father-in-law and the Appellant's husband that since she is to return to her house in Jaipur in 2-3 days, her demand of a “mangalsutra” be fulfilled within 2 days, or else the 3rd day would be the last day for the Complainant in that house. Since she was not able to fulfill the demands, the Complainant was allegedly beaten up and thrown out of the matrimonial house on 08.09.1999. The Complainant was not allowed to take with her any of her belongings including her own motorcycle, jewelery, or clothes, and was left to fend for herself. Aggrieved, she reported the incidents of cruelty and filed a Complaint on the same day with PS Prasad Nagar, Delhi vide DD No. 31 dt. 08.09.1999. It is the case of the Complainant that since the incident, she has been living with her parents. It is further alleged that on 06.12.1999, the Complainant while returning from her shift at the Palam Airport was allegedly beaten up by the Appellant, who threatened her to withdraw the earlier Complaint alleging domestic violence against him and his family. The Complainant, who was pregnant at the time, had allegedly hit the railing and purportedly sustained an injury on the right side of the ear. She reported the incident by filing a Complaint at PS Palam Airport vide DD No. 35 dated 06.12.1999. The Complainant gave birth to a daughter on 27.04.2000. It is alleged that neither the Appellant nor any of his family members came to visit her or their newborn daughter at the hospital or at her parents’ house. Even at that stage, when the Complainant was in dire need, the Appellant or his family did not return her belongings. The Complainant alleges that the Appellant, who did not bother to visit her own daughter, assaulted the Complainant's wife during the advanced stage of pregnancy and did not incur any expenditure towards the birth of the child, and yet enjoyed paternity leave for more than 15 days from the Department. On 03.07.2002, the Complainant filed a formal Complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CAW Cell, New Delhi through proper channels, wherein she gave elaborate details of the alleged incidents and the torture meted out to her since her marriage on 28.02.1998. Pursuant to the said Complaint, FIR No. 1098/2002 dt. 19.12.2002 was registered at PS Malviya Nagar, under sections 498A, 406 & 34 IPC against the Appellant husband and her in-laws.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE IN THE COURTS:-

In the present case, the charge sheet was filed on 27.07.2004 before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Ld. Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offences on the very same date, i.e., 27.07.2004. Thereafter, by an order dated 04.06.2008, the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to frame charges against the appellant under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. However, the charge under Section 406 IPC was dropped. Aggrieved by the said order of framing of charge, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the Ld. Sessions Court. The Revisional Court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the revision petition and consequently discharged the appellant from the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said discharge order, Respondent No.2/Complainant preferred a petition before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, vide impugned order, allowed the said petition and set aside the discharge order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, thereby restoring the charge framed under Section 498A/34 IPC against the appellant.

LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED:-

Whether the criminal prosecution initiated against the accused is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and for the purpose of computing such limitation, whether the relevant date is the date of institution of the complaint/FIR or the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence?

The Supreme Court once again reaffirmed the principles already laid down in the case of 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], by which it was held that the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of institution of the complaint or FIR and not the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance. In the present case, since the last alleged incident of cruelty was on 06.12.1999 and the formal complaint to the DCP was filed on 03.07.2002, followed by FIR registration on 19.12.2002, the prosecution was held to be within the prescribed three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC. Accordingly, the Court held that there was no need to invoke Section 473 CrPC (extension of limitation) as limitation was not a bar to prosecution.

Omnibus Allegations and Prima Facie Material-

Despite deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the complainant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of the allegations made in the FIR and the chargesheet and found them to be inherently lacking in specificity and credibility. The Court observed that the accusations were generic, undated, and vague in nature, particularly in relation to the appellant’s extended family members. Significantly, there was a complete absence of supporting documentary evidence such as medical records, injury reports, or testimony from independent witnesses that could substantiate the allegations of physical or mental cruelty. Placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [(2018) 14 SCC 452], and latest judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State, the Court reaffirmed that the indiscriminate and mechanical implication of multiple relatives in matrimonial disputes, without specific attribution of roles or overt acts, amounts to an abuse of the process of criminal law. The inclusion of distant relatives and even unrelated individuals such as a tailor in the FIR further undermined the credibility and objectivity of the complaint.

Conclusion:

In the exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to quash the FIR and the charge sheet in order to do complete justice, particularly in light of the fact that the criminal proceedings had remained pending for over 26 years. The judgment in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) harmoniously balances doctrinal precision with equitable relief. While reiterating that procedural limitations under Section 468 CrPC should not defeat legitimate complaints filed within the prescribed time, the Court simultaneously cautioned against the indiscriminate and omnibus impleadment of multiple family members and distant relatives in matrimonial disputes under Section 498A IPC, in the absence of specific allegations and prima facie material on record.