Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court recently quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed against a husband and his family members for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code(domestic cruelty towards wife), emphasizing that generic allegations lacking specificity cannot sustain a criminal trial. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [2025 INSC 803], cautioning against the misuse of legal provisions while reiterating the need to protect genuine victims of cruelty.
Background The complainant, a Delhi Police sub-inspector, married Ghanshyam Soni in 1998. She alleged that soon after marriage, her husband and his family, including his mother and five sisters-in-law, demanded ₹1.5 lakh, a car, and a separate house as dowry, and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The allegations included threats with a dagger and physical assault during her pregnancy. She initially filed a complaint on 03.07.2002, leading to registration of FIR No. 1098/2002 on 19.12.2002 at PS Malviya Nagar, Delhi under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance on 27.07.2004.
The Sessions Court, by order dated 04.10.2008, discharged all the accused on the ground that the allegations were time-barred, as they pertained to incidents from 1999. The High Court in April 2024 reversed that order, reinstating the charges, leading the accused to approach the Supreme Court. Court's Findings The Bench found that the allegations against the mother-in-law and five sisters-in-law were vague and generic, without specific details of individual acts or incidents. Citing K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Court stressed that distant relatives cannot be prosecuted based on omnibus allegations alone.
The Court noted that despite serious allegations of physical cruelty and dowry demands, the complainant had failed to produce medical records, injury reports, or witness statements. The complainant had also withdrawn an earlier complaint, raising doubts about the credibility of her claims. "Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC," the Court observed. While acknowledging that even a police officer could be a victim of cruelty, the Court cautioned against the misuse of criminal law provisions to harass family members. It highlighted that indiscriminate prosecution, especially of distant relatives, must be avoided to prevent abuse of process.
"It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an 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 this Court." The observation made in the recent judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr regarding the misuse of this provision was cited. Court's Ruling Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 1098/2002 and the chargesheet dated 27.07.2004, holding that proceeding with the trial would be oppressive and unjust given the lack of specific allegations and evidence. The Court emphasized that although the complaint was filed within the limitation period, the allegations were too vague and unsupported to justify a criminal trial. The Bench concluded that a balance must be maintained between protecting genuine victims and preventing harassment of the accused through baseless prosecutions.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2025 SC)
