In a very significant development with far reaching consequences, we see that yet once again the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled ABC v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 2894 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9709 of 2024] & Another in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 803 that was pronounced just recently on June 4, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has quashed a cruelty case that has been registered under Section 498A of the IPC by a woman police officer against her husband, his parents and five sisters. It must be pointed out that the Apex Court was most unequivocal in holding clearly 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 and a tailor were arrayed as accused. It must be brought out here that the appeal before the Apex Court had challenged the impugned judgment that had been passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the order that had been passed by the Sessions Court discharging the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside. The Apex Court thus exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution while allowing the appeals very rightly set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and quashed the impugned FIR as well as chargesheet.
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “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 observations in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2024 INSC 953., Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [2010] 7 SCC 667 aptly captures this concern.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The captioned Appeal is filed assailing the Impugned Judgment/Final Order dt. 01.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. MC No. 1227/2009 whereby the Order/Judgment dt. 04.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Delhi (“Sessions Court”) in CR No. 87/2008 discharging the Appellant for the offence u/s 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No. 1098/2002 dt. 19.12.2002 registered with PS Malviya Nagar, was set aside.”
It is worth noting that the Bench observes in para 11 that, “As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. 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, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 960 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 671. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. 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.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 12 that, “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 the other hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step further and overtly emphasised that simply because the Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In this debate, it is only reasonable to reiterate that the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must delve into the material on record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality. Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and since then the parties have moved on with their respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “The criminal machinery was set in motion with the Complaint dt. 03.07.2002 filed by the Complainant wife/Respondent no.2 culminating into the FIR No. 1098/2002 dt. 19.12.2002 registered with PS 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:
3.1 As per the FIR, 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.
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-inlaw, 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, jewellery 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 had been living with her parents.
3.6 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.
3.7 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 new-born 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 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.
3.8 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.
3.9 The Charge-sheet in the captioned case was filed on 27.07.2004 under sections 498A, 406 & 34 IPC and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (“Magistrate”) took cognizance on the very same day. Vide Order dt. 04.06.2008, the Magistrate framed charges under section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and dropped the charge under section 406 IPC. 3.10 Aggrieved by the Order dt. 04.06.2008 passed by the Magistrate, the Appellant filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 87/2008 before the Sessions Court, Delhi. Apart from the submissions that the allegations against him and his family are false, it was the assertion of the Appellant that the alleged incidents of cruelty pertain to the year 1999, whereas she lodged a Complaint on 03.07.2002 after an inordinate delay of 3 years. It was averred that the cognizance on the Complaint was only taken on 27.04.2004, which is beyond the limitation period as provided under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).
3.11 The Sessions Court vide Order dt. 04.10.2008 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 cognizance was taken on 27.04.2004 of the alleged incidents of cruelty pertaining to the year 1999 i.e. after five (05) years of the commission of the alleged offence, whereas the limitation period for an offence punishable under Section 498A is three (03) years.(Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973). The Sessions Court held that the Magistrate did not have the inherent powers to condone delay under section 473 CrPC at the time of framing of charges, and even if it was authorized to condone such delay, it could not have done so in the present case where the chances of false implication of the Appellants were apparent.
3.12 The Sessions Court further remarked that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out since the Complainant wife was a police officer trained to tackle tough and high-pressure situations and such an offence in question could not have been committed against her.
3.13 Aggrieved thereby, the Complainant filed the Petition under section 482 CrPC assailing the Judgement dt. 04.10.2008 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court vide Impugned Judgment and final Order dt. 01.04.2024 allowed the Petition, and set aside the Order dt. 04.10.2008 passed by the Sessions Court, observing that the findings of the Sessions Court were perverse.
3.14 The captioned Appeal is against the Impugned Judgment and final Order dt. 01.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi. During the course of the proceedings before this Court, the Appellant has also filed an Application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the FIR No. 1098/2002 dt. 19.12.2002.”
Interestingly enough, it would be instructive to note that the Bench for sake of clarity then clarifies in para 18 holding that, “Therefore, this is certainly not a case where the Complaint or the issuance of process is ex-facie barred by limitation, that the question of condonation of delay would arise. It is therefore clarified that the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the offence under section 498A and the question of applicability or exercise of powers under section 473 CrPC as erroneously observed by the Sessions Court, does not even arise and need not be delved into at this stage.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then propounds in para 19 holding that, “In the interest of justice, and in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we deem it fit and appropriate to quash and set aside the FIR No. 1098/2002 dt. 19.12.2002 registered with PS Malviya Nagar and the Chargesheet dt. 27.04.2002.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 20 that, “Both the Criminal Appeals are accordingly allowed.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
