11 June 2025 Legal Updates

SUPREME COURT QUASHES S.498A IPC CASE AGAINST HUSBAND & IN-LAWS, CAUTIONS AGAINST MISUSE OF LAW

(a) Case Title:

• Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background Facts

Marriage between appellant (husband) and complainant (wife) solemnized on February 28, 1998, according to Buddhist rites. Both parties were serving as Sub-Inspectors with Delhi Police. The wife alleged dowry harassment and cruelty by husband and his family members. She alleged that specific incidents of cruelty occurred in the year 1999. The wife filed multiple complaints: first on September 8, 1999, second on December 6, 1999 (later withdrawn), and final complaint on July 3, 2002. An FIR was registered on December 19, 2002, under Sections 498A, 406 & 34 IPC.

Legal Journey

• Trial Court: Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance on July 27, 2004, and framed charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC
• Sessions Court: Discharged the appellant on October 4, 2008, holding the case was time-barred (cognizance taken after 5 years when limitation is 3 years)
• High Court: Set aside the Sessions Court order on April 1, 2024, finding it perverse

Key Legal Issues

1. Limitation Period under Section 468 CrPC

For computing limitation period, the relevant date is the date of filing complaint, NOT the date of taking cognizance. Complaint filed on July 3, 2002, was within 3-year limitation from alleged offences in 1999

2. Dowry Harassment (Section 498A IPC)

For an offence to be covered under this section, specific allegations with concrete evidence is required. The Court found that in the present case, the allegations were "generic and ambiguous" without specific incidents, dates, or corroborating evidence. Secondly ,there were no medical records, injury reports, or witnesses produced

3. False Implication in Matrimonial Disputes

The Cour made note of the growing misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial cases wherein women rope in distant relatives without specific allegations in order to harass them. The Supreme Court noted that the Courts should be careful about omnibus allegations against extended family members.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR stating that the FIR was very vague as it contained generic accusations without specific details about time, place or manner of commission of offence. Secondly, there were no medical records produces, no injury reports or witnesses to testify the claims of physical cruelty. Also, the investigation agencies did not add any charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Appellants. The incidents relate to the year 1999. The Supreme Court criticized Sessions Court's reasoning that police officer cannot be victim of domestic violence and affirmed that being a police officer doesn't immunize against cruelty.

The Court finally quashed and set aside the FIR against the appellants.

Important Legal Principles

• Limitation in Criminal Cases (Section 468 CrPC): 3-year limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years. Limitation to be computed from date of filing complaint, not taking cognizance
• Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband/Relatives): Requires specific allegations with concrete evidence, Generic accusations without specifics insufficient
• Misuse of Legal Provisions: Courts increasingly vigilant about false cases in matrimonial disputes and Emphasis on specific evidence rather than omnibus allegations

DEVELOPER NOT LIABLE TO PAY HOMEBUYER'S BANK LOAN INTEREST FOR DELAY IN FLAT DELIVERY: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) v. Anupam Garg & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• 4th June, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Key Facts

GMADA launched "Purab Premium Apartments" scheme in 2011 in Sector 88, Mohali. One Mr. Anupam Garg applied for a 2-BHK apartment worth ₹55 lakhs, paid earnest money of ₹5.5 lakhs. The Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on 21st May 2012 with possession promised within 36 months (by 21st May 2015). The LOI contained a clause: if possession not delivered on time, authority would refund entire amount with 8% compound interest annually. When possession wasn't delivered by the scheduled date, respondents opted out and demanded refunds.

Consumer Commission Orders

1. State Commission Order:

• Directed GMADA to refund entire deposited amounts with 8% compound interest
• Awarded ₹60,000 compensation for mental harassment
• Awarded ₹30,000 litigation costs
• Crucially ordered GMADA to pay interest on loans taken by complainants from banks

2. National Commission (NCDRC):

• Upheld the State Commission's order and Dismissed GMADA's appeal with costs of ₹20,000 each.

3. Issue Before SC:

• Whether GMADA should be liable to pay interest on loans taken by flat buyers from banks, in addition to the contractual 8% compound interest.

Key Legal Principles Established:

• Compensation Principles: When developer receives payment but fails to deliver possession within stipulated time, allottee entitled to refund with reasonable interest. Additional compensation may be awarded based on facts of each case.
• Limits on Compensation: Forums cannot award interest/compensation arbitrarily. When parties have agreed on specific consequences for delay, exceptional reasons needed to award more. Multiple compensation heads for same default not sustainable.
• Developer's Liability Scope: Developer not concerned with how buyer arranges finances (savings, loans, etc.). Only relationship is consumer-service provider. 8% contractual interest adequately compensates for delay/deprivation.

Court's Reasoning:

The 8% compound interest already compensates for deprivation of money and time. Whether buyer uses savings or takes loan is irrelevant to developer. No exceptional circumstances justified additional loan interest payment. Awarding both contractual interest AND loan interest amounts to double compensation

Supreme Court's Ruling:

PARTIALLY ALLOWED GMADA's appeal - Struck down the order requiring payment of loan interest

'MARRIAGE WAS WITH APPROVAL OF FAMILIES, STATE CAN'T OBJECT' : SUPREME COURT GRANTS BAIL TO MAN JAILED OVER INTER-FAITH MARRIAGE

(a) Case Title:

• Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary alias Raja v. State of Uttarakhand

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 19, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Facts of the Case

The appellant was charged under Sections 3/5 of Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and Sections 318(4) and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case arose from the appellant's interfaith marriage with a woman of different faith. The marriage was arranged with consent of both families, but certain persons and organizations objected after the marriage. The appellant had been in jail for nearly six months. The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital had rejected his regular bail application on February 28, 2025.

Legal Issues

• Whether bail should be granted in cases involving allegations under anti-conversion laws
• Rights of couples in interfaith marriages to live together

Arguments

1. Appellant's Counsel:

• The complaint was frivolous and filed only because of the interfaith marriage
• The marriage was arranged with full knowledge and consent of both families
• The appellant and his wife should be allowed to live peacefully together
• Bail should be granted considering the nature of allegations

2. State's Counsel:

• Opposed the bail application through counter affidavit
• Argued there was no merit in the appeal

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail, observing that:

• The State cannot object to the couple living together as they were married with their families' consent
• The pendency of criminal proceedings should not prevent the couple from residing together
• This was an appropriate case for granting bail relief

Key Legal Principles

• Interfaith Marriage Rights: Couples in interfaith marriages have the right to live together when the marriage was consensual and arranged with family knowledge
• Bail Jurisprudence: Courts should consider the nature of allegations and circumstances while deciding bail matters
• Religious Freedom: Anti-conversion laws should not be misused to target genuine interfaith marriages