Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Rajesh Sharma & ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017)
Decided On : 27-07-2017
(2005) 6 SCC 281; (2010) 7 SCC 667; (2010) 13 SCC 540; ILR (2003) I Delhi 484; (2008) 151 DLT 691; (2014) 8 SCC 273(2014) 2 SCC 1 – Referred;
(b) Administration of justice – Judicial review – Courts do not legislate but only interpret the law – While doing so laying down some norms may be unavoidable – Penal statute – Interpretation should make it workable in a fair and reasonable manner – Courts quash proceedings in an offence of private nature if found to be oppressive. (Para 16)
(2012) 10 SCC 603; (1998) 4 SCC 409; (1989) 2 SCC 754; (2012) 1 SCC 333; (2012) 3 SCC 346; (2014) 4 SCC 453; (2012) 10 SCC 303; (2014) 5 SCC 364 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Need to sensitize investigating officers and the courts – Involvement of civil society in the aid of administration of justice would be required – Closure of proceedings where genuine settlement has been reached needs to be facilitated – Directions given. (Para 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The question which has arisen in this appeal is whether any directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A.
There is need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
Misuse and abuse of section 498A has become rampant.
Result: Directions given.
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
Leave granted.
2. The question which has arisen in this appeal is whether any directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, as acknowledged in certain studies and decisions. The Court requested Shri A.S. Nadkarni, learned ASG and Shri V.V. Giri, learned senior counsel to assist the Court as amicus. We place on record our gratitude for the assistance rendered by learned ASG Shri Nadkarni and learned senior counsel Shri Giri who in turn was ably assisted by advocates Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Pragya Baghel and Ms. Svadha Shanker.
3. Proceedings have arisen from complaint dated 2nd December, 2013 filed by respondent No.2 wife of appellant No.1. Appellants 2 to 5 are the parents and siblings of appellant No.1. The complainant alleged that she was married to appellant No.1 on 28th November, 2012. Her father gave dowry as per his capacity but the appellants were not happy with the extent of the dowry. They started abusing the complainant. They made a demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a car which the family could not arrange. On 10th November, 2013, appellant No.1 dropped the complainant at her matrimonial home. She was pregnant and suffered pain in the process and her pregnancy was terminated. On the said version, and further version that her stridhan was retained, appellant No.1 was summoned under Section 498A and Section 323 IPC. Appellants 2 to 5 were not summoned. Order dated 14th July, 2014 read as follows:
"After perusal of the file and the document brought on record. It is clear that the husband Shri Rajesh Sharma demanded car and three lacs rupees and in not meeting the demand. It appears that he has tortured the complainant. So far as torture and retaining of the stri dhan and demanding 50,000 and a gold chain and in not meeting the demand the torture is attributable against Shri Rajesh Sharma. Rajesh Sharma appears to be main accused. In the circumstances, rest of the accused Vijay Sharma, Jaywati Sharma, Praveen Sharma and Priyanka Sharma have not committed any crime and they have not participated in commission of the crime. Whereas, it appears that Rajesh Sharma has committed an offence under Section 498A, 323 IPC and read with section 3 / 4 DP act appears to have prima facie made out. Therefore, a summon be issued against him."
4. Against the above order, respondent No.2 preferred a revision petition and submitted that appellants 2 to 5 should also have been summoned. The said petition was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur vide order dated 3rd July, 2015. The trial court was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter. Thereafter, the trial court vide order dated 18th August, 2015 summoned appellants 2 to 5 also. The appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC against the order of summoning. Though the matter was referred to the mediation centre, the mediation failed. Thereafter, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the order of summoning and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.
5. Main contention raised in support of this appeal is that there is need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute. Omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in normal course it may only be the husband or at best his parents who may be accused of demanding dowry or causing cruelty. To check abuse of over implication, clear supporting material is needed to proceed against other relatives of a husband. It is stated that respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial home. Appellant No.2, father of appellant No.1, is a retired government employee. Appellant No.3 is a house wife. Appellant No.4 is unmarried brother and appellant No.5 is unmarried sister who is a government employee. Appellants 2 to 5 had no interest in making any demand of dowry.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and the averments in the complaint.
7. Learned ASG s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
