Sunday, Apr 28, 2024

24x7 Free Helpline For Men +91-888-2-498-498

Share
whatsapp

Court Name : Supreme Court of India

Law Point: SC Modifies The Earlier Directions Issued To Prevent Misuse Of 498A IPC, Says No To ‘Welfare Committees’

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar vs Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others
Supreme Court
14/09/2018
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2017 and WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 156 of 2017
About/from the judgment:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of a writ petition related to Section 498-A IPC, modified the directions concerning registration of FIR, arrest and bail under the said section as given in a recent judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 821.

The writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, was filed seeking directions to the respondents to create an enabling environment for married women subjected to cruelty to make informed choices and to create a uniform system of monitoring and systematically reviewing incidents of violence against women under Section 498-A IPC including their prevention, investigation, prosecution and rehabilitation of the victims and their children at the Central, State and District levels. That apart, prayer was made to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents for a uniform policy of registration of FIR, arrest and bail in cases of Section 498-A IPC in consonance with the law of the land, i.e., to immediately register FIR on complaint of cruelty and harassment by married women as per the IPC. It is worthy to note here that during the pendency of the instant petition, the judgment was pronounced in Rajesh Sharma. During the course of proceedings, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the said decision requires reconsideration.

The Supreme Court, in order to adjudicate on the petition, perused scheme and object of Section 498-A as well as guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 and also Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P, (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Court opined that the scope of preliminary enquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. On perusal of directions in Rajesh Sharma, the Court found that it directed constitution of the Family Welfare Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed the duties of the Committees. The prescription of duties of the Committees and further action therefor, in Court’s view, were beyond the Code and the same did not really flow from any provision of the Code. It was stated that there could be no denial that there has to be just, fair and reasonable working of a provision. The legislature, in its wisdom, has made the offence under Section 498-A IPC cognizable and non-bailable. The fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind. In the aforesaid analysis, the Court declared the directions pertaining to Family Welfare Committee and its constitution by the District Legal Services Authority and the power conferred on the Committee is impermissible. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; D.K. Basu; Lalita Kumari and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. It was thought appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by the Court relating to arrest. In view of the aforesaid premises, the direction contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole was not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the directions given by the Court. Direction No. 19(iii) was modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , shall dispose of the same. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Quick Links
Tags
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
CrPC 319
CrPC 161
Quashing 498a
IPC 497
306
HMA 25
IndianPenalCode
IPC 354
CrPC 128
IPC 334
Mutual Consent Divorce
CrPC 127
Diet Money
IPC 376
498a
Divorce
False affidavit
323
CrPC 126
CrPC 468
Maintenance
Police Custody
No maintenance to deserting wife
Electronic evidence
DV-Act
IPC 406
Cooling period
Car to husband
No relief to people who come to courts with unclean hands
Passport
FIR
IPC 506
CrPC 340 - Perjury
clubbing all cases in single court
Stay by Appellate Court
Dowry
Section 376
CrPC 41
Maintenance dismissed
DP Act
IPC 323
406
322
False Allegations
RCR
Dowry Death
No Proper Source of funds of dowry.
Quash
No neighbor examined.
HMA
EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
HMA-24
IPC 304
IPC
CrPC 340
prohibition
CrPC 294
504
Wife earning
NCRB
41a
Child Custody
Vague Allegations
RTI
Caveat
unclean hands
Judicial Custody
Bail
No Independent witness examined
IPC 375
Dowry Misuse
False Case
Passport
CrPC 313
IPC 302
156(3)
Legal Terrorism

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law related blogs and websites. We, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, LawOctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc. Many of the judgements are also taken from the websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Copyright © 2019-20 SIF Chandigarh. All Rights Reserved