1. Complaint under Section 498A IPC alleging dowry demands and cruelty — summoning of husband and relatives — challenge against summoning of relatives. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 698
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Court, expressing concern over misuse and abuse of section 498A, gave directions for curbing the menace.
Court, expressing concern over misuse and abuse of section 498A, gave directions for curbing the menace.
Subject
Criminal Law - SECTION 498A IPC
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Aimed at punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman – Large number of cases continue to be filed u/s 498A alleging harassment of married women – Most complaints filed in heat of the moment over trivial issues – Many complaints not bona fide – Implications and consequences not visualized – Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement – Two areas of immediate concern identified – Uncalled for implication of husband and Continuation of proceedings in spite of settlement between the parties since the offence is non-compoundable. (Para 14, 15)
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :- V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Mahesh Srivastava, Pankaj Srivastava, P.N. Puri, Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Ms. Shringarika Priyadarshni, Advs.
For the Parties :- V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Mahesh Srivastava, Pankaj Srivastava, P.N. Puri, Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Ms. Shringarika Priyadarshni, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Tendency to implicate all family members based on omnibus allegations — need for clear supporting material to proceed against relatives of the husband. (Para 5 )
3. Acknowledgment of misuse of Section 498A to harass innocent relatives — low conviction rates — impact of uncalled-for arrests on matrimonial reconciliation. (Para 7 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
4. Penal provisions must be interpreted to prevent unjust or unreasonable working — necessity of safeguards against over-implication and uncalled-for arrests in matrimonial disputes. (Para 16 , 18 )
5. Directions for constituting Family Welfare Committees, designating Investigating Officers, facilitating settlement-based closures, and granting exemptions from personal appearance for relatives. (Para 19 )
6. How has the court viewed the application of Section 498A IPC regarding the implication of relatives?
The court observed a growing tendency to abuse Section 498A by roping in all relatives based on vague and exaggerated allegations, often leading to the harassment of innocent family members and hindering reconciliation. (Para 7 , 14 )
7. What is the purpose and function of the Family Welfare Committees directed by the court?
These committees, constituted by District Legal Services Authorities, review complaints under Section 498A to provide factual reports and opinions, normally preventing arrests until such reports are received. (Para 19 )
8. Can criminal proceedings under Section 498A be closed if a settlement is reached?
Yes, the District and Sessions Judge or a nominated senior Judicial Officer may dispose of proceedings, including closing the criminal case, if the dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord and a settlement is reached. (Para 19 )
9. What directions did the court provide regarding arrests and bail in matrimonial cruelty cases?
Arrests should not be automatic; bail applications should be decided promptly, and the recovery of disputed dowry items should not be the sole ground for denying bail. (Para 19 )
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
