Date of Limitation to be seen from the date of filing of complaint, and not when cognizance is taken: SC Clarifies

  • Post author:
  • Post published:June 22, 2025
  • Post last modified:June 22, 2025
  • Reading time:4 mins read

The Bench comprising of Satish Chandra Sharma, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. has delivered a significant judgment on the interplay of limitation under Section 468 CrPC and Section 498-A IPC. The Hon’ble Court laid down crucial principles regarding the computation of limitation in continuing offences and addressed the misuse of criminal machinery in matrimonial disputes. The Appellant, Ghanshyam Soni, a Delhi Sub-Inspector, was charged under section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC on a complaint filed by his wife, alleging cruelty and dowry demands by him and his family. The Sessions Court discharged the accused on grounds of limitation and dubious allegations, which was reversed by the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court restored the discharge, holding that although the complaint was filed within limitation, no prima facie case of cruelty was made out.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant, Ghanshyam Soni, a Delhi Sub-Inspector, was charged under section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC on a complaint filed by his wife, alleging cruelty and dowry demands by him and his family. It was alleged that physical and mental cruelty and dowry demands of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a car and a separate house, including threats and physical violence in 1999. The first complaint was filed on 18.09.1999, and a subsequent complaint was filed on 06.12.1999, but the same was later withdrawn. The third complaint was filed on 03.07.2022 and the same was converted into FIR No. 1098/2002 on 19.12.2002. The Sessions Court discharged the accused on grounds of limitation and dubious allegations, which was reversed by the High Court. Thereafter, the same was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

STATUTES INVOLVED

  1. Section 498-A IPC: cruelty by husband or relatives.
  2. Section 406 IPC: criminal breach of trust.
  3. Section 34 IPC: common intention.
  4. Section 468 CrPC: bar to taking cognizance after lapse of limitation.
  5. Section 473 CrPC: extension of limitation in the interest of justice.
  6. Section 482 CrPC: inherent powers of High Court.
  7. Article 142: Complete justice by Supreme Court.

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the FIR dated 1912.2002 was time-barred under Section 468 CrPC?
  2. Whether a prima facie case of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC was made out?
  3. Whether the Sessions Court rightly discharged the Appellant and his family?
  4. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the discharge?
  5. Can the Supreme Court quash FIR and chargesheet under Article 142 of the Constitution?

JUDGMENTS REFERRED

  1. K. Subba Rao v State of Telangana1: distant relatives should not be roped in matrimonial cases based on vague allegations.
  2. Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v State of Gujarat2: bald allegations without specific dates and evidence are insufficient under Section 498-A IPC.
  3. Rajesh Chaddha v State of Uttar Pradesh3: need for concrete evidence and not mere accusations in dowry cases.
  4. Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand4: cautioned against misuse of Section 498-A IPC and false implication of relatives.
  5. Dara Lakhsmi Narayana v State of Telangana5: Similar concern on misuse of matrimonial laws.
  6. Bharat Damodar Kale v State of Andra Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC 559: date of filing complaint is relevant for limitation, not date of cognizance.
  7. Sarah Matthew v Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases6: reiterated above view on limitation computation.
  8. Kamatchi v Lakshmi Narayan7: delay in taking cognizance cannot prejudice complainant if complaint filed in time.

RATIO DECIDENDI

  1. The Limitation period under Section 468 CrPC is computed from the date of filing the complaint, not from the date of cognizance. The complaint filed on 03.07.2022 was within the 3-year period for an offence allegedly committed in 1999.
  2. Allegations against the husband and his relatives were vague, unsupported by medical evidence or specific dates and events. No sufficient material to proceed under Section 498-A IPC was present.
  3. Judicial machinery cannot be misused to settle personal scores. The Courts must prevent false implication of multiple family members in matrimonial disputes without credible evidence.

OBITER DICTUM

  1. Being a police officer does not make a woman immune from domestic violence, but neither does it shied her from the consequences of misusing her legal knowledge to falsely implicate others.
  2. Courts must tread cautiously in matrimonial cases to ensure neither genuine complainants are discouraged nor innocent relatives are harassed.

DECISION

  1. FIR No. 1098/2002 and chargesheet dated 27.07.2004 were quashed.
  2. The Discharge Order of the Sessions Judge was restored and the Order of the High Court was set aside.
  3. Both criminal appeals were allowed under Article 142 of the Constitution.

CASE TITLE: GHANSYAM SONI V STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

QUORUM: B. V. Nagarathna, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

CASE NO: SLP(CRL) NO. 9709 OF 2024/ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2894 OF 2025

DECIDED ON: 04.06.2025

Read/ Download the Judgment by clicking here.

  1. (2018) 14 SCC 452. ↩︎
  2. 2024 INSC 960. ↩︎
  3. 2025 INSC 671. ↩︎
  4. (2010) 7 SCC 667. ↩︎
  5. 2024 INSC 953. ↩︎
  6. (2014) 2 SCC 62. ↩︎
  7. (2022) 15 SCC 50. ↩︎
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,