Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 940

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Ghanshyam Soni – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2894 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9709 of 2024] WITH Criminal Appeal No. 2895 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17951 of 2024]
Decided On : 04-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yusuf, AOR
For the 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.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty – Judicial decision cannot be blurred to actual facts and circumstances of a case – Case cannot proceed on bald and omnibus allegations.
(2) Complaint – Limitation – For computation of limitation period under Section 468, Cr.P.C., relevant date is date of filing of complaint or date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which Magistrate takes cognizance.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Cruelty – Reversal of order of discharge of accused-appellant – Complainant refers to few instances of atrocities, however allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous – Allegations against family members who have been roped in, is that they used to instigate Appellant husband to harass Complainant wife and taunted Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect – Allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature and do not elaborate concrete picture of what may have transpired – Evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with accusations and version of Complainant seems implausible and unreliable – Apart from bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by prosecution or rather produced by complainant to substantiate ingredients of “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC – There is also no evidence to substantiate purported demand for dowry allegedly made by Appellant or his family – Judicial decision cannot be blurred to actual facts and circumstances of a case – Divorce of decree has already been passed and since then parties have moved on with their respective lives – It would be unjust and unfair if Appellants are forced to go through tribulations of trial – In interest of justice and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, FIR quashed. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 468 and 473 – Complaint – Limitation – For computation of limitation period under Section 468, Cr.P.C., relevant date is date of filing of complaint or date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which Magistrate takes cognizance – Magistrate is well within his powers to take cognizance of complaint filed within a period of three years from date of commission of offence as mandated under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Simply because cognizance is taken at a later stage, but Complaint was filed within specified period from commission of offence, Complainant cannot be put to prejudice and her Complaint cannot be discarded as time-barred – This is certainly not a case where Complaint or issuance of process is ex-facie barred by limitation, that question of condonation of delay would arise – Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A and question of applicability or exercise of powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C. does not even arise. (Paras 15, 16 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Captioned Appeal is filed assailing Impugned Judgment/Final Order dt. 01.04.2024 passed by High Court of Delhi in Crl. MC No. 1227/2009 whereby Order/Judgment dt. 04.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Delhi, in CR No. 87/2008 discharging Appellant for offence u/s 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR registered with PS Malviya Nagar, was set aside.
Findings of Court:
Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A and the question of applicability or exercise of powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C. as erroneously observed by Sessions Court, does not even arise and need not be delved into at this stage.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

Judicial decisions must be based on the actual facts and circumstances of the case; they cannot be blurred or generalized based on bald or omnibus allegations. The court emphasized the importance of specific, concrete evidence to substantiate claims of cruelty or harassment (!) (!) (!) .
In cases involving complaints and the computation of limitation periods, the relevant date for calculating the limitation is the date of filing the complaint or the institution of prosecution, not the date when the court takes cognizance. This approach ensures that complaints filed within the prescribed time frame are not dismissed solely due to delays in court proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The case highlighted that allegations must be specific and supported by incriminating material to establish a prima facie case. Generic or ambiguous accusations without specific incidents or evidence are insufficient to sustain charges of cruelty under relevant criminal provisions (!) (!) .
The final judgment underscored that the mere involvement of a police officer as a complainant does not automatically imply falsehood or undermine the credibility of the allegations. The court stressed that each case should be examined on its own merits, with a focus on the material on record and the likelihood of false implication (!) .
The importance of exercising judicial discretion under constitutional provisions to ensure justice was emphasized, especially in circumstances where the parties have moved on or where the allegations appear to lack substantive evidence. In this case, the court found that the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case and that continued proceedings would be unjust (!) (!) .
The court also noted the tendency to misuse legal provisions in matrimonial disputes and cautioned against unnecessarily dragging individuals into criminal proceedings based on omnibus allegations, especially when the evidence does not support such claims (!) .
The judgment clarified that the order of discharge by the lower court was correct when based on the assessment of evidence and the absence of specific incriminating material. The higher court's intervention was justified to prevent unwarranted criminal proceedings, especially considering the finality of the divorce decree and the passage of time since the alleged incidents (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision reinforced that criminal proceedings should be initiated and continued only when there is a prima facie case supported by specific, credible evidence, and that procedural and limitation considerations are crucial in safeguarding individuals from unwarranted prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The captioned Appeal is filed assailing the Impugned Judgment/Final Order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 1227/2009 whereby the Order/Judgment dated 04.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Delhi (“Sessions Court”) in C.R. No. 87/2008 discharging the Appellant for the offence u/s 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No. 1098/2002 dated 19.12.2002 registered with P.S. Malviya Nagar, was set aside.

3. The criminal machinery was set in motion with the Complaint dated 03.07.2002 filed by the Complainant wife/Respondent no. 2 culminating into the FIR No. 1098/2002 dated 19.12.2002 registered with P.S. Malviya Nagar, against the Appellant husband and her in-laws for commission of offences under sections 498A, 406 & 34 IPC. The factual conspectus is briefly stated as under:

3.2 It is alleged that soon after her marriage, the Complainant learnt 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.

3.3 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.

3.4 It is alleged that on 27.04.1999, the Appellant husband and her mother-in-law, Smt. Bhagwati had beaten up the Complainant with fists, 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.

3.5 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 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 P.S. Prasad Nagar, Delhi vide DD No. 31 dated 08.09.1999. It is the case of the Complainant that since the incident, she had been living with her parents.

3.6 It is further