UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION AND MISUSE OF LAW
Case Name: Ghanshyam Soni vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2894 OF 2025
Date of Judgment: 4th June, 2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case started with a complaint filed by the wife (Respondent No. 2) on July 3, 2002. This complaint led to the police officially recording a case (FIR No. 1098/2002) on December 19, 2002, at Malviya Nagar Police Station. The case was against her husband (the Appellant) and his family, accusing them under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 34 (acts done by several people for a common purpose) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The husband and wife got married on February 28, 1998, and both were police officers (Sub-Inspectors) in Delhi. Soon after their marriage, the wife claimed that her husband and his family started bothering and making fun of her because she didn’t bring enough dowry. She said they demanded Rs. 1.5 lakhs in cash, a car, and a separate house, and that she was treated badly, both physically and mentally. Some specific incidents she mentioned include: on April 27, 1999, her husband and his mother allegedly beat her, injuring her wrist. She went back to her parents’ home and later returned with Rs. 50,000/-. On September 4, 1999, her husband allegedly threatened her with a dagger. The next day, September 5, 1999, a sister-in-law allegedly threatened her for not giving a “mangalsutra” (a traditional necklace). On September 8, 1999, she claimed she was beaten and thrown out of her marital home without her belongings, and she filed a complaint about this on the same day at Prasad Nagar Police Station. Later, on December 6, 1999, while she was pregnant, her husband allegedly beat her and forced her to withdraw the earlier complaint, which she reported at Palam Airport Police Station. Finally, on April 27, 2000, she gave birth to a daughter, but neither her husband nor his family visited her or the child.
A detailed complaint about these events was officially filed on July 3, 2002, with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CAW Cell, New Delhi, which then led to the FIR being registered. After this, a formal document called a charge-sheet was filed on July 27, 2004. On the same day, the Metropolitan Magistrate (a type of judge) officially recognized the case, bringing charges under Section 498A along with Section 34 IPC, but decided not to pursue the charge under Section 406 IPC. The husband challenged this decision in the Sessions Court, arguing that the complaint was filed too late (time-barred). He pointed out that the alleged incidents happened in 1999, but the complaint was lodged on July 3, 2002, and the judge recognized the case on July 27, 2004, which was beyond the three-year time limit set by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Sessions Court, on October 4, 2008, cleared the husband and his family, stating that the Magistrate had recognized a case that was too old and didn’t have the power to excuse the delay at the stage of setting charges. The Sessions Court also commented that since the wife was a police officer, it was less likely she would be a victim of such a crime. Unhappy with the Sessions Court’s decision, the wife filed a petition (Crl. MC No. 1227/2009) in the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 CrPC. On April 1, 2024, the High Court overturned the Sessions Court’s order, calling its comments wrong. The husband then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, also asking for the original police case (FIR) to be cancelled under Article 142 of the Constitution.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Did the High Court make a mistake by overturning the Sessions Court’s order that cleared the husband and others?
- Was the complaint filed by the wife time-barred according to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
- Was there a prima facie case to show that the husband and his family committed cruelty under Section 498A IPC, based on the accusations and available records?
- Should the FIR and the charge-sheet be cancelled by using the Supreme Court’s special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860): Section 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 34 (acts done by several people for a common purpose).
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, 1973): Section 468 (bar to taking cognizance after lapse of limitation period), Section 473 (extension of limitation period in certain cases), Section 482 (saving of inherent powers of High Court).
- Constitution of India: Article 142 (Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice).
APPPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS
The husband (Ghanshyam Soni) argued that the High Court was wrong to overturn the Sessions Court’s decision, which he believed was well-reasoned. He claimed the case was too old (time-barred) under Section 468 CrPC because the alleged events happened in 1999, but the complaint was filed on July 3, 2002, and the judge took official notice of the case on July 27, 2004, which was past the three-year deadline. The husband also stated that the Magistrate shouldn’t have recognized a case that was too old, and couldn’t change its own decision at the stage of setting charges. He further argued that the delay in filing the official police report (FIR) on December 19, 2002, more than three years after the alleged incidents in 1999, was too long and had no good explanation, especially since similar complaints were made in 1999. Finally, the husband insisted that the accusations in the FIR were false and there was no initial evidence to support a case against him or his family.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The wife (Respondent No. 2) argued that her complaints shouldn’t be considered false just because she is a police officer. She stated that there were clear accusations of physical and mental harassment, and therefore, the Sessions Court should not have cleared her husband without a proper trial. The wife claimed that the last alleged crime happened on December 6, 1999, and her complaint that led to the FIR was filed on July 3, 2002, which was well within the three-year time limit under Section 468 CrPC. She stressed that the important date for calculating the time limit is when the complaint is filed or when legal action begins, not when the judge officially recognizes the case. Furthermore, she argued that a crime under Section 498A IPC is a “continuing offense,” meaning it happens over time, and serious accusations were made against her husband and his family even after September/December 1999. The State (government) supported the prosecution’s case and asked for the appeal to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court carefully looked at the arguments, focusing on two main parts: whether the accusations under Section 498A IPC had merit, and the issue of the time limit for filing the case.
- Merits of the Allegations under Section 498A IPC: The Court found that the FIR contained general and unclear accusations of mental and physical cruelty by the husband in 1999 over insufficient dowry. The accusations against family members, especially the five sisters and a tailor, were seen as just general accusations without specific events or proof. The Court found the wife’s story hard to believe and unreliable because of inconsistencies and a lack of clear details.
The Court referred to K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 452, which repeated the rule that “Courts should be careful when taking action against distant relatives in family disputes and dowry deaths. The husband’s relatives should not be included based on general accusations unless there are specific examples of their involvement in the crime.” The Court felt this rule perfectly applied here, where distant relatives were accused without specific details. Also, Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2024 INSC 960) and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 671) were mentioned to show that vague accusations without specific times, dates, or places, and without strong evidence, are not enough to prove “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC.
The Court noted that the wife did not provide medical records, injury reports, X-ray reports, or witnesses to support her claims. It also highlighted that she had withdrawn her second complaint on December 6, 1999, just six days later. Furthermore, the police investigators had not added charges under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to the charge-sheet, which suggested a lack of evidence regarding dowry demands.
While agreeing with the High Court’s view that a police officer can also be a victim of cruelty, the Supreme Court stressed that legal decisions must be based on actual facts. The Court’s review of the FIR and other evidence showed that there was no initial evidence strong enough to build a case against the husband or his family. The Court also pointed out that the divorce between the couple was final, and it would be unfair to make the husband and his family go through a trial given how much time had passed and that both parties had moved on with their lives.
The Court expressed worry about the increasing trend of misusing legal provisions, especially involving elderly parents-in-law, sisters, and even a tailor as accused, citing Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2024 INSC 953) and Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667.
- Issue of Limitation under Section 468 CrPC: Even though the Court found no strong initial case on the merits, it still looked at the time limit issue. It ruled that the complaint filed on July 3, 2002, was not too late. The Court made it clear that the correct date for calculating the time limit under Section 468 CrPC is the date when the complaint is filed or when legal action begins, and not the date when the Magistrate officially recognizes the case.
The Court relied on Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC 559. This judgment clearly states that “for calculating the time limit, the important date must be considered as the date of filing the complaint or starting criminal proceedings, not the date when a Magistrate recognizes the case or issues a summons.” This ruling overturned all earlier decisions that said otherwise. It emphasized that a wronged person should not be punished for delays by the court in recognizing a case if the complaint was filed within the allowed time. Sarah Mathew Vs Institute Cardio Vascular Diseases by Its Director DR K. M. Cherian & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 62 was also mentioned to support this established legal position on calculating the time limit. Furthermore, Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022) 15 SCC 50 repeated that a complainant should not be harmed if a case is recognized after the time limit, as long as the complaint or the start of legal action was within the allowed period from when the crime happened.
The Court agreed with the High Court’s comment that “considering the date the crime was committed as September 8, 1999, and the date the complaint was filed as July 3, 2002, this Court finds that the Complaint was lodged by the Petitioner within two years and ten months from the date of the alleged crime, which is within the three-year time limit as per Section 468 of CrPC.” Therefore, the Court clarified that there was no need to even consider excusing any delay under Section 473 CrPC.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court approved both Criminal Appeals. It decided that the complaint was not filed too late, clarifying the legal rule for calculating the time limit under Section 468 CrPC. Despite this finding on the time limit, the Court determined that there was no initial strong evidence against the husband and his family based on the general and unproven accusations. To ensure fairness, and using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court decided it was right and proper to cancel and set aside FIR No. 1098/2002 dated December 19, 2002, recorded at Malviya Nagar Police Station, and the Charge-sheet dated July 27, 2004.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. is important for two main reasons. First, it confirms the established legal principle that the date a complaint is filed, not the date a judge officially recognizes the case, is the key factor for deciding the time limit under Section 468 CrPC. This clarification is very important to make sure people who complain are not punished for delays caused by the court. Second, and more significantly, the Court used its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to cancel the FIR and charge-sheet. It strongly highlighted the lack of initial evidence and expressed clear disapproval of legal rules being misused to accuse distant relatives based on vague and unproven claims. This judgment emphasizes that judges need to carefully examine accusations and evidence, especially in family disputes, to prevent unfair treatment and ensure justice.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY DHRUV SELOT
