The Supreme Court has quashed a cruelty case registered under section 498A of the IPC by a woman Police Officer against her husband, his parents and five sisters. The Apex Court observed that it was unfortunate that the complainant, being an officer of the State, had initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters & a tailor were arrayed as accused.

The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the impugned judgment passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the Order passed by the Sessions Court discharging the Appellant for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside.

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “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.”

AOR Yusuf represented the Appellant while ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint was filed by the Complainant, wife/Respondent, culminating in the FIR against the Appellant husband and her in-laws for commission of offences under sections 498A, 406 & 34 IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that the marriage was solemnized in 1998, and at the time, both parties were serving as Sub-Inspectors with the Delhi Police. It was alleged that the Appellant-husband and her mother-in-law had beaten up the Complainant with fists, blows for not fulfilling their needs. It was the complainant’s case that the Appellant did not bother to visit her own daughter, assaulted the Complainant wife during the advanced stage of pregnancy and did not incur any expenditure towards the birth of the child. Thereafter, a chargesheet came to be filed and the Magistrate framed charges under section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and dropped the charge under section 406 IPC.

The Sessions Court, within its powers of revision, discharged the Appellant, his mother and her five sisters for the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC. It was observed that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of a time-barred case, as the cognizance was taken in 2004 of the alleged incidents of cruelty pertaining to the year 1999. The High Court allowed the complainant’s Petition and set aside the aforesaid Order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Complainant referred to a few instances of atrocities, however, the allegations were generic and rather ambiguous. It was noticed that the allegations against the family members, who had been roped in, were that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there was no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, there was not even a cursory mention of the incident pertaining to the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant.

The Bench found the evidence on record to be inconsistent with the accusations and also mentioned that the version of the Complainant seemed to be implausible and unreliable. “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…”, it said while also adding, “ There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet.”

The Bench further said, “In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC. Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which must be strictly based on application of judicial principles to the merits of the case.”

On a scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record, the Bench noted that no prima facie case was made out against the Appellant or his family. It was also borne from the record that the divorce decree of their marriage had already been passed, and the same had never been challenged by the Complainant wife, and hence had attained finality.

On the issue of limitation, the Bench held that the complaint was not time-barred and was filed within the ascribed period of three years from the date of the commission of the offence. There was no material change from the first Complaint made in 1999 and the final Complaint made in the year 2002, and it couldn’t be construed that the same was not within the time frame of limitation simply because cognizance was taken by the Magistrate two years later. “It is a settled position of law that for the computation of the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance”, it said.

Thus, allowing the appeals, the Apex Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and quashed the impugned FIR as well as Chargesheet.

Cause Title: ABC v. State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 803)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Yusuf

Respondent: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Anita Sahani, Vanshaja Shukla, B K Satija, Kamlendra Mishra, Udai Khanna, Siddharth Sinha, Tathagat Sharma, Raman Yadav, Sunanda Shukla, AOR Jasmeet Singh, Advocates Saif Ali, Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Vijay Sharma, Pranav Menon, Saurav

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice BV NagarathnaJustice Satish Chandra Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.