Can the criminal justice system be used to harass innocent family members in matrimonial disputes? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., acknowledging the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision, intended to protect women from cruelty, has been frequently exploited to implicate entire families, leading to unnecessary arrests and harassment. The judgment, delivered by Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, outlines measures to curb this misuse, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that protects women while preventing abuse of the law.
Case Background
The case arose from a complaint filed on December 2, 2013, by the wife (Respondent No. 2) against her husband (Appellant No. 1) and his family. The wife alleged that her husband and his family were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage. She further alleged that they demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000 and a car. The complainant also stated that she was abused and eventually dropped at her matrimonial home, where she suffered a miscarriage. She claimed her stridhan was also retained by the husband and his family.
Initially, only the husband was summoned under Section 498A and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the wife filed a revision petition seeking to summon the husband’s parents and siblings. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted her petition and directed the trial court to reconsider the matter. Subsequently, the trial court summoned all family members. The appellants then approached the High Court, which dismissed their petition. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 28, 2012 | Complainant married Appellant No. 1. |
| November 10, 2013 | Complainant dropped at her matrimonial home and suffered a miscarriage. |
| December 2, 2013 | Complaint filed by the wife (Respondent No. 2). |
| July 14, 2014 | Trial court summoned only the husband (Appellant No. 1). |
| July 3, 2015 | Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial court to take a fresh decision. |
| August 18, 2015 | Trial court summoned all family members (Appellants 2 to 5). |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court initially summoned only the husband, Rajesh Sharma, under Section 498A and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court found that there was prima facie evidence of torture against Rajesh Sharma for demanding dowry. However, the trial court did not find any evidence against the other family members.
The wife then filed a revision petition, arguing that the husband’s family members should also be summoned. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, accepted this petition and directed the trial court to reconsider. Subsequently, the trial court summoned all the other family members. The appellants then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the summoning order. The High Court, however, did not find any ground to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in this case is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses cruelty towards a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The section states:
“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The explanation to this section defines cruelty as:
“any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
The Supreme Court also considered the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which prohibits the giving or taking of dowry.
Arguments
The appellants argued that there is a tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes. They contended that omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband should not be taken at face value. According to the appellants, clear supporting material is needed to proceed against relatives other than the husband. They highlighted that the husband’s father is a retired government employee, his mother is a housewife, his brother is unmarried, and his sister is a government employee. Therefore, they had no interest in demanding dowry.
The respondent supported the impugned order and the averments in the complaint. The respondent contended that all family members were involved in the cruelty and dowry demand.
The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) acknowledged that Section 498A was enacted to protect women from cruelty and dowry demands. However, the ASG also accepted that there is a growing tendency to abuse the provision by roping in all relatives, including elderly parents, minor children, and siblings, based on vague allegations. This, according to the ASG, results in harassment and arrest of innocent family members. The ASG also referred to statistics from the Crime Records Bureau (CRB) showing a high rate of arrests under Section 498A with a low conviction rate.
The learned ASG suggested that there should be a preliminary inquiry before any arrest, and that arrest of relatives other than the husband should only be after permission from the concerned Magistrate. The ASG also suggested that the offense should be made compoundable and bailable.
Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel, submitted that arrests under Section 498A should only be made after recording reasons and with express approval from the Superintendent of Police. He also suggested that counseling should be mandatory before registering a case under Section 498A.
Submissions of Parties
| Appellants (Husband and his family) | Respondent (Wife) | Additional Solicitor General (ASG) | Senior Counsel (Shri V. Giri) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ✓ There is a tendency to rope in all family members in matrimonial disputes. | ✓ Supported the impugned order and the averments in the complaint. | ✓ Section 498A was enacted to check unconscionable demands. | ✓ Arrest under Section 498A should be only after recording reasons. |
| ✓ Omnibus allegations against all relatives should not be taken at face value. | ✓ There is a growing tendency to abuse the provision. | ✓ Express approval from the Superintendent of Police is needed for arrest. | |
| ✓ Clear supporting material is needed to proceed against relatives. | ✓ Vague and exaggerated allegations are made without verifiable evidence. | ✓ Counseling should be mandatory before registering a case under Section 498A. | |
| ✓ Appellants 2 to 5 had no interest in making any demand of dowry. | ✓ There is harassment and arrest of innocent family members. | ||
| ✓ Preliminary inquiry should be conducted before arrest. | |||
| ✓ Arrest of relatives other than husband should be after permission from the Magistrate. | |||
| ✓ The offense should be made compoundable and bailable. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified the following issue:
- Whether any directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, as acknowledged in certain studies and decisions.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether any directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A? | The Court acknowledged the misuse of the provision and issued several directions to prevent such misuse. These directions include the constitution of Family Welfare Committees, designated investigating officers, and guidelines for arrests. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several cases and reports while addressing the issue of misuse of Section 498A. These authorities highlight the concerns about the provision’s misuse and the need for safeguards.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India [2005] 6 SCC 281 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand [2010] 7 SCC 667 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2010] 13 SCC 540 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand ILR [2003] I Delhi 484 | Delhi High Court | Referred | Acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A. |
| M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Cr. O.P. No. 1089 of 2008 | High Court of Judicature at Madras | Referred | Issued guidelines to check the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Chander Bhan versus State [2008] 151 DLT 691 | Delhi High Court | Referred | Issued guidelines for arrest in dowry cases. |
| Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCC 273 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Gave directions to safeguard against uncalled for arrests. |
| Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh [2014] 2 SCC 111 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Observations on preliminary inquiry. |
| Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India [2012] 10 SCC 603 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| SCBA v. Union of India [1998] 4 SCC 409 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. [1989] 2 SCC 754 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham [2012] 1 SCC 333 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh [2012] 3 SCC 346 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Just and fair procedure being part of fundamental right to life. |
| Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012] 10 SCC 303 | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Power of quashing a non-compoundable case of private nature. |
| 243rd Law Commission Report (August, 2012) | Law Commission of India | Referred | Recommendation to make the offense compoundable. |
| 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petition (September, 2011) | Rajya Sabha Committee on Petition | Referred | Consideration of the issue of misuse of Section 498A. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court in this case issued several guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court acknowledged the misuse of the provision and the need for safeguards against uncalled for arrests and harassment.
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Need to check the tendency to rope in all family members. | The Court agreed and issued directions to ensure that family members are not routinely implicated without proper evidence. |
| Omnibus allegations against all relatives should not be taken at face value. | The Court concurred, emphasizing the need for clear supporting material to proceed against relatives. |
| Preliminary inquiry should be conducted before arrest. | The Court directed that every complaint be referred to a Family Welfare Committee before any arrest is made. |
| Arrest of relatives other than husband should be after permission from the Magistrate. | The Court directed that no arrest should be effected until the Family Welfare Committee submits its report. |
| The offense should be made compoundable and bailable. | The Court did not directly make the offense compoundable but directed that in cases of settlement, the proceedings can be closed by the District and Sessions Judge. |
| Arrests under Section 498A should be only after recording reasons and with express approval from the Superintendent of Police. | The Court directed that complaints should be investigated by a designated Investigating Officer and that arrests should be made after considering the report of the Family Welfare Committee. |
| Counseling should be mandatory before registering a case under Section 498A. | The Court directed the constitution of Family Welfare Committees to interact with the parties, which includes an element of counseling. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India [2005] 6 SCC 281* | The Court acknowledged the observation made in this case regarding the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand [2010] 7 SCC 667* | The Court acknowledged the observation made in this case regarding the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2010] 13 SCC 540* | The Court acknowledged the observation made in this case regarding the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand ILR [2003] I Delhi 484* | The Court acknowledged the observation made in this case regarding the misuse of Section 498A. |
| M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Cr. O.P. No. 1089 of 2008 | The Court took note of the guidelines issued by the Madras High Court to check the misuse of Section 498A. |
| Chander Bhan versus State [2008] 151 DLT 691 | The Court took note of the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court for arrest in dowry cases. |
| Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCC 273* | The Court reiterated the directions given in this case to safeguard against uncalled for arrests. |
| Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh [2014] 2 SCC 111 | The Court referred to the observations made in this case regarding the need for a preliminary inquiry. |
| Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India [2012] 10 SCC 603 | The Court used this case to support its position that laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| SCBA v. Union of India [1998] 4 SCC 409 | The Court used this case to support its position that laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. [1989] 2 SCC 754 | The Court used this case to support its position that laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham [2012] 1 SCC 333 | The Court used this case to support its position that laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. |
| State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh [2012] 3 SCC 346 | The Court used this case to support the position that just and fair procedure is part of the fundamental right to life. |
| Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012] 10 SCC 303 | The Court used this case to support its position that it has the power to quash a non-compoundable case of private nature. |
| 243rd Law Commission Report (August, 2012) | The Court took note of the recommendation to make the offense compoundable. |
| 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petition (September, 2011) | The Court took note of the consideration of the issue of misuse of Section 498A. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the protection of women from cruelty with the prevention of misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court observed that while the provision was enacted with the laudable object of punishing cruelty against women, it has been frequently misused to implicate entire families, leading to harassment and injustice. The Court also considered the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau, which showed a high rate of arrests under Section 498A with a low conviction rate. The Court emphasized the need to protect the human rights of innocent individuals and ensure that the criminal justice system is not used as a tool for harassment.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Section 498A | 40% |
| Harassment of Innocent Family Members | 30% |
| Need for Safeguards | 20% |
| Statistics of Low Conviction Rate | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was also based on the principle that a just and fair procedure is part of the fundamental right to life. The Court observed that the power to quash a non-compoundable case of a private nature can be exercised if the proceedings are found to be oppressive. The Court also took into account the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions, which had also highlighted the misuse of Section 498A.
Logical Reasoning
Complaint under Section 498A received
Referred to Family Welfare Committee
Committee interacts with parties
Committee submits report within one month
Report considered by Investigating Officer or Magistrate
No arrest normally until report is received
Investigation by designated officer
Bail application decided on the same day
Settlement can be disposed of by District Judge
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Family Welfare Committees must be constituted in every district to look into complaints under Section 498A.
- ✓ Complaints should be investigated by a designated Investigating Officer.
- ✓ No arrest should normally be effected until the Family Welfare Committee submits its report.
- ✓ In cases where a settlement is reached, the District and Sessions Judge can dispose of the proceedings.
- ✓ Bail applications should be decided on the same day, if possible.
- ✓ Impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notices should not be routine for persons residing outside India.
- ✓ Personal appearance of all family members, particularly outstation members, may not be required.
- ✓ These directions do not apply to cases involving tangible physical injuries or death.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Family Welfare Committees: One or more Family Welfare Committees must be constituted in every district by the District Legal Services Authorities. These committees should comprise three members, preferably from para-legal volunteers, social workers, retired persons, or wives of working officers. The committees will look into complaints under Section 498A and submit a report within one month.
- Designated Investigating Officer: Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offenses should be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. These officers should undergo training.
- Settlement: In cases where a settlement is reached, the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer can dispose of the proceedings, including closing the criminal case.
- Bail: Bail applications should be decided on the same day if possible, with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant. Recovery of disputed dowry items should not be the sole ground for denial of bail.
- Out of India Residents: Impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notices should not be a routine practice for persons residing outside India.
- Clubbing of Cases: The District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer can club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes.
- Personal Appearance: Personal appearance of all family members, particularly outstation members, may not be required. The trial court should grant exemptions or permit appearance by video conferencing.
- Exclusion: These directions will not apply to offenses involving tangible physical injuries or death.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was enacted to protect women from cruelty, it is being misused to implicate entire families. The Supreme Court, therefore, issued guidelines to prevent such misuse, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that protects women while preventing abuse of the law. This judgment has led to a change in the previous position of law, which did not have such specific safeguards against the misuse of Section 498A.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. is a significant step towards addressing the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By issuing specific guidelines, the Court aims to ensure that the provision is not used to harass innocent family members while still protecting women from cruelty. The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach and the involvement of civil society in the administration of justice.