By the Court.—On 8.8.2011, there was an extensive hearing in this case when Ms. Leena Jauhari, Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. Lucknow, Smt. Poonam Sikand, Additional L.R and Tanuja Srivastava, I.G.( Public Grievances), Ms. G. Sridevi, Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organising Secretary, Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sister Sheeba Jose Advocates on behalf of the intervenor ‘Sahyog,’ Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate and Sri Bimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A appeared and were heard at length.

2. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director General of Police on 10.8.2011. Another affidavit was also filed on behalf of Special Secretary (Home), U.P. on 12.8.2011. An application was also moved by the intervenor ‘Sahyog.’

This Court appreciates the positive contributions and suggestions of all the aforesaid advocates and other State officials and that this pro bono litigation is being taken up in the right non-adversarial spirit, with the aim to ensure that wherever allegations are not very grave, in order to save families, and children and indeed the institution of marriage, an effort be first made for reconciling matrimonial disputes by mediation before steps can be taken for prosecuting offenders, if they are called for. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363, the learned members of the bar have been reminded of their noble profession and their noble tradition and of their responsibility to ensure that the social fibre of family life is preserved by desisting from over-implicating all in-laws and their relations as accused persons in 498-A IPC reports, and from filing exaggerated reports. They are also to make an endeavour to bring about amicable settlements to this essentially human problem. It has also been rightly pointed out in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100 (para 18) whilst upholding the vires of Section 498-A IPC, that it should be ensured that complaints are not filed with oblique motives by unscrupulous litigants so that a “new legal terrorism” is not unleashed, and that the well-intentioned provision is not misused.

In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, it has been held that there is a tendency in cases of 498-A IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a large number of in-laws of the victim wife, and not only the husband. In para 5 of the law report it has been observed: “....In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

3. Specifically as a result of the interaction and suggestions which emerged after a dialogue with the Advocates and officials, this Court requires to formulate its opinion on the following points:

1. Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory once an aggrieved woman or the eligible family members as specified under Section 198A Cr.P.C approaches the police station giving information that an offence under Section 498A IPC or allied provisions such as under Section 3/4 D.P. Act or under Section 406 I.P.C have been committed by the husband or other in-laws and their relations.

2. Should the concerned police officers immediately proceed to arrest the husband and other family members of the husband whenever such an FIR is lodged.

3. Can a distinction be made between the cases where arrest is immediately necessary and other cases where arrest can be deferred and an attempt be first made for bringing about mediation between the parties.

4. What is the appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.

5. Should a time frame be laid down for concluding the mediation proceedings.

6. Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district.

7. What is the procedure to be followed by the pol