Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2017

Subject : Misuse of Sec. 498A Of IPC.  

• Rajesh Sharma and Sneha Sharma got married on 28th November 2012.The father of Sneha has given dowry to his fullest capacity but the appellants were not happy with it.
• They began abusing or beating the complainant and made demands for dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a car.
• The appellant left the complainant at her home since her pregnancy was terminated. On that appellant were summoned under the Section 498A and Section 323 of IPC.
• The wife filed a case against the appellant and their relatives. She alleged that her husband made a demand for the dowry as she was pregnant, she also alleged that she was harassed by her husband and their family members which resulted in the termination of the pregnancy.
• The appellants approached the High Court for getting the summons quashed but the same was dismissed by the court. Therefore, the appellants filed the appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court.
• However, the appellants had no interest in making demand for dowry.

1. Whether there is a requirement to check the tendency to rope in all members of the family to settle a matrimonial dispute?

2. Whether there is misuse of Section 498A, IPC or not?

While considering the background of the issue and taking into account the 243rd Report of the Law Commission dated 30th August, 2012, 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions (September, 2011) and earlier decisions, the Supreme Court said that though it was “conscious of the object for which the provision was brought into the statute”, at the same time, “violation of human rights of innocent cannot be brushed aside. Certain safeguards against uncalled for arrest or insensitive investigation have been addressed by this Court. Still, the problem continues to a great extent.”

“To remedy the situation”, the Court was of the view that involvement of civil society in the aid of administration of justice can be one of the steps, apart from the investigating officers and the concerned trial courts being sensitized” and that “it is also necessary to facilitate closure of proceedings where a genuine settlement has been reached instead of parties being required to move High Court only for that purpose.”

Accordingly, the following directions were given by the Court:-

i)

• (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority. 
• (b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing. 
• (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses. 
• (d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such a committee. Such a committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication. 
• (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint. 
• (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. 
• (g) Till the report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. 
• (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. 
• (i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time. 
• (j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable. 
• (k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper. 

ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officers may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today; 

iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord; 

iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; 

v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; 

vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and 

vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. 

viii) These directions will not apply to the offenses involving tangible physical injuries or death.”

In this case, the Court gave more impetus to the rights of the accused husband and his relatives, than those of the complainant woman. The fact exists that women have been discriminated against and continue to be so. The laws that aim to provide better legal protection to these persons against gender-specific crimes are in place for reasons well-founded. 

Despite modernization and “woman development”, there has not been any significant improvement towards reducing crimes against women. 

Specific provisions of law such as S. 498A secure to women the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the right to equality under Article 15. Denying the required protection of law to a specific sex is discrimination in one of its basest forms.

Possible misuse is an unfortunate but common after-effect of the enforcement of a law. Numerous provisions of law are abused to harass innocent people, S. 498A not being an exception. However, the amount of its misuse is not so significant that it can dwarf the positive change it has brought into society. 

The guidelines issued in the present judgment will serve as mere hindrances to the proper implementation of Section 498A. Women’s rights activists and legal minds all over the country eagerly await the judicial review of this judgment by the Supreme Court of India.