Supreme Court Revisits Section 498A IPC: Safeguarding Women and Preventing Misuse (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 798

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Can a court introduce extra-judicial bodies to oversee criminal complaints? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question while examining the implementation of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a law designed to protect married women from cruelty. This judgment clarifies the extent to which courts can issue guidelines that affect the criminal justice system, particularly in cases of matrimonial disputes. The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivered a unanimous opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition seeking to ensure a uniform system for monitoring and reviewing cases of violence against women under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners argued that the absence of such a system had led to the dilution of the legislative intent behind the provision, which was enacted to protect vulnerable women from cruelty and harassment. They contended that while there were complaints of misuse of Section 498A, there was no concrete data to support the claim. Further, they argued that the court was diluting the provision by making the offence bailable by imposing various restrictions.

The petitioners also raised concerns about the police’s hesitation to arrest accused persons in these cases, despite Section 498A being a non-bailable offense. They highlighted the lack of a monitoring mechanism to track cases and study the reasons for low conviction rates. The petitioners also argued that investigations were often unprofessional and influenced by both parties, allowing perpetrators to escape conviction. They further contended that courts often focused solely on physical cruelty, ignoring mental cruelty, and branding women as hyper-sensitive. The petitioners also pointed out that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the practice of dowry was still prevalent, and women were still being tortured.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Supreme Court had issued guidelines in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., which included the constitution of Family Welfare Committees (FWC) to review complaints under Section 498A before any arrest could be made. The court in Rajesh Sharma also allowed for settlement of cases by the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior judicial officer nominated by him, and also stated that recovery of dowry should not be a ground for denial of bail. This led to another writ petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017, which questioned the guidelines issued in Rajesh Sharma. The Supreme Court then appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. The section states:

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—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. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) 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 (b) 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.”

Additionally, the judgment references Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which outlines the conditions under which a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant. It also mentions Section 41A of the CrPC, which mandates the issuance of a notice of appearance before a police officer in cases where arrest is not required under Section 41(1) of the CrPC. The Court also refers to Section 482 of the CrPC, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the guidelines issued in Rajesh Sharma diluted the legislative intent of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by making the offence practically bailable and hindering the protection of women from cruelty. They contended that the Family Welfare Committees (FWC) created by the judgment were an extra-judicial body that had no basis in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners also argued that the police were hesitant to arrest accused persons, despite Section 498A being a non-bailable offense. They further argued that the courts were not considering mental cruelty and often branded women as hyper-sensitive.

The Amicus Curiae submitted that the decision in Rajesh Sharma required reconsideration because it conferred powers on the FWC, which is an extra-judicial committee, to look into criminal complaints under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that this was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the direction that no arrest should be made until the committee’s report was received was also against the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also submitted that the power to dispose of proceedings under Section 498A by the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior judicial officer nominated by him in cases where there is a settlement was impermissible, as the offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. The Amicus Curiae also pointed out that the recovery of disputed dowry items may not be a ground for denial of bail, which is the discretion of the court, and that this amounted to a direction that was not warranted in law. Further, the direction that impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notices should not be done routinely for persons residing out of India was also criticized, as the competent court can issue appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to issue Red Corner Notices depending on the facts of the case.

The Amicus Curiae also submitted that the dispensation of personal appearance of outstation family members was unwarranted, as the competent court that deals with the application of exemption should be allowed to exercise judicial discretion, and there should not have been a general direction by the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the directions issued in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., particularly regarding the constitution and powers of Family Welfare Committees, were legally valid and within the scope of judicial interpretation.
2. Whether the Court could have directed settlement of a non-compoundable offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior judicial officer nominated by him.
3. Whether the directions relating to the grant of bail and the impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notices were justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while analyzing the authorities, held that the directions issued in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. regarding the constitution of Family Welfare Committees (FWC) were not in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court stated that the FWC was an extra-judicial body and that the directions to settle a case after it is registered is not a correct expression of law. The Court also held that the power to quash the criminal proceedings rests with the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court, however, upheld the directions that the recovery of disputed dowry items may not be a ground for denial of bail and that the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases, are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the Code.

The Court observed that the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar were in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also stated that the guidelines stated in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. are within the framework of the Code and the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency. The Court held that the purpose was to see that the investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest people at its whim and fancy.

The Court clarified its stance on the authorities by stating:

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The directions issued in this case are in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 CrPC and Section 41-A CrPC.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [CITATION] and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [CITATION]: The guidelines stated in these cases are within the framework of the Code and the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency.
• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The power to quash the criminal proceedings rests with the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to balance the protection of women from cruelty and harassment with the prevention of misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court was concerned that the directions in Rajesh Sharma had the potential to enter into the legislative field and that the constitution of Family Welfare Committees was beyond the scope of judicial interpretation. The Court also emphasized the need for the investigating agency to act responsibly and not abuse its power of arrest. The Court also considered the need to ensure that the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings is not curtailed.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The directions in Rajesh Sharma had the potential to enter into the legislative field.
• The constitution of Family Welfare Committees was beyond the scope of judicial interpretation.
• The investigating agency should not abuse its power of arrest.
• The High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings should not be curtailed.

The Court emphasized that the investigating officers should be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Lalita Kumari, and Arnesh Kumar.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has overruled the directions in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. regarding the constitution and powers of Family Welfare Committees (FWC). The Court held that these directions were beyond the scope of judicial interpretation and that the FWC was an extra-judicial body with no basis in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court has clarified that the power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rests solely with the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court has upheld the directions that recovery of disputed dowry items may not be a ground for denial of bail and that the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases, are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the Code.
• The Court has emphasized that investigating officers must follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not automatically arrest in every case.
• The Court has directed the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers in charge of Section 498A cases are rigorously trained on the principles stated by the Supreme Court relating to arrest.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The investigating officers should be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Lalita Kumari, and Arnesh Kumar.
• The Director General of Police of each State should ensure that investigating officers in charge of Section 498A cases are rigorously trained on the principles stated by the Supreme Court relating to arrest.
• If a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh, shall dispose of the same.
• The directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases, and that recovery of disputed dowry items may not be a ground for denial of bail, shall be governed by what the Court has stated in paragraph 35 of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts cannot introduce extra-judicial bodies to oversee criminal complaints, and that the power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses rests solely with the High Court. This judgment clarifies the extent to which courts can issue guidelines that affect the criminal justice system, particularly in cases of matrimonial disputes. This judgment also overrules the directions issued in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. regarding the constitution and powers of Family Welfare Committees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. vs. Union of India clarifies the scope of judicial intervention in the implementation of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By striking down the directions for Family Welfare Committees and emphasizing adherence to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court has reinforced the importance of the established legal framework. This decision aims to protect women from cruelty while also preventing the misuse of the law, ensuring a balanced approach in matrimonial dispute cases.