LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

GHANSHYAM SONI versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 04-06-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 331 : 2025 INSC 803
Ghanshyam Soni 
v. 
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2894 of 2025)
04 June 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the cognizance on the complaint u/ss.498A 
rw s.34 IPC was taken beyond the limitation period as mandated 
u/s.468 CrPC; and whether the prima facie case u/ss.498A rw s.34 
IPC was made out against the appellant-husband or his family.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.468 – Penal Code, 1860 – 
ss.498A, 34 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the 
period of limitation – Allegations of cruelty and dowry demand 
against the appellant-husband and in-laws, by the respondent 
no.2-wife – Both parties police officer – Filing of complaints 
by respondent no.2, and withdrawal of one  – Thereafter, 
respondent no.2 registered FIR against the appellant and 
her in-laws for commission of offences u/ss.498A, 406 and 
34 and chargesheet was filed – Magistrate framed charges 
only u/ss.498A rw s.34 – Revision Petition by the appellant 
that allegations against him and his family were false; that 
the complaint was lodged after an inordinate delay of 3 
years; and that the cognizance on the complaint was taken 
beyond the limitation period – Sessions Court discharged 
the appellant and the in-laws for the offences u/ss.498A 
and 34 holding that the Magistrate took cognizance of time-
barred case – High Court set aside the order passed by the 
Sessions Court – Correctness:
Held: For the computation of the limitation period u/s.468 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 – Magistrate is well within his powers to take 
cognizance of a complaint filed within a period of three years from 
* Author
332
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the date of the commission of offence as mandated u/s.468 – 
Simply because the cognizance is taken at a later stage, but the 
complaint was filed within the specified period from the commission 
of the offence, the complainant cannot be put to prejudice and the 
complaint cannot be discarded as time-barred – High Court was 
right in holding that considering the date of commission of offence 
and the date of filing of complaint, the complaint was lodged by 
the complainant within the period of limitation of three years as per 
s.468 – Not a case where the complaint or the issuance of process 
is ex-facie barred by limitation – Magistrate rightly took cognizance 
of the offence u/s.498A and the question of applicability or exercise 
of powers u/s.473 CrPC does not arise – Furthermore, the scrutiny 
of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals 
that no prima facie made out against the appellant or his family – 
Divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and 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 – In the interest of justice, and in exercise of 
power u/Art.142, the FIR and the chargesheet are quashed and 
set aside. [Paras 11-19]
Case Law Cited
Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [2010] 9 SCR 
1168 : [2010] 7 SCC 667; Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh [2003] 8 SCC 559; Kamatchi v. Lakshmi 
Narayanan [2022] 15 SCC 50 – relied on.
K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, 
Department of Home & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 452; Jaydedeepsinh 
Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 960 : 
[2024] 12 SCR 439; Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 
INSC 671; Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & 
Anr., 2024 INSC 953 : [2024] 12 SCR 559; Sarah Mathew v. Institute 
Cardio Vascular Diseases by Its Director Dr. K. M. Cherian & Ors. 
[2013] 12 SCR 674 : [2014] 2 SCC 62 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Dowry 
Prohibition Act, 1961.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
333
Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
List of Keywords
Cognizance on the complaint; Limitation period; Allegations of 
cruelty and dowry demands; Chargesheet; Inordinate delay; 
Discharging the accused; Time-barred case; Sessions Court; Date 
of commission

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.