The Supreme Court has struck down criminal proceedings against a husband and his extended family under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, sounding a cautionary note against using the law as a tool for vengeance rather than justice.
In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., a two-judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma declared that sweeping accusations without specific evidence or clear timelines cannot serve as the foundation for a criminal trial. The ruling isn’t just about one case—it’s a sharp reminder about how easily legal provisions meant to protect can be twisted into weapons of harassment.
The Case That Triggered It All
The complainant, a sub-inspector with the Delhi Police, married Ghanshyam Soni in 1998. She later accused her husband, his mother, and five sisters-in-law of harassing her for dowry—demanding ₹1.5 lakh, a car, and a separate residence. Her complaint painted a grim picture: threats with a dagger, beatings during pregnancy, and mental torture. The FIR was filed in 2002, and the chargesheet followed in 2004.
But the Sessions Court in 2008 saw things differently, dismissing the charges for being too dated. That decision was reversed by the High Court in 2024, prompting the accused to seek refuge in the apex court.
What the Top Court Saw—and Didn’t See
The Supreme Court found the accusations hollow—no medical records, no injury reports, no independent witness statements. What did exist were broad, catch-all allegations thrown at seven individuals, including aged in-laws and even a family tailor, with no indication of who did what, when, or where.
Referencing its earlier verdict in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, the Court reiterated that distant relatives cannot be dragged into criminal proceedings on vague grounds. Simply being related is not enough.
“It is unfortunate,” the Bench remarked, “that a state officer has invoked the criminal machinery in a manner that ropes in aged parents-in-law, five sisters, and a tailor.” While it didn’t dismiss the possibility of cruelty having occurred, it was firm in condemning what it called a misuse of legal provisions.
Justice, But Not Without Precision
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court quashed both the FIR and the chargesheet. Though the complaint was filed within time, the lack of particularity made a criminal trial unjustified, the judges concluded.
The ruling didn’t lose sight of the original purpose of Section 498A—it acknowledged that domestic abuse is real, pervasive, and serious. But it drew a hard line between genuine pursuit of justice and baseless prosecution.
A law meant to shield the vulnerable, the Court said, must not become a cudgel for vendetta. And in the quest for justice, both overreach and underreach are equally dangerous.
