LawZ Magazine

Family Welfare Committee – Section 498-A of I.P.C.

By Dr. Sailaja Petikam

Recently the Supreme Court of India issued new guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh on 27-07-2017. In this case, the two-judge bench namely Justice A. K. Goel and U. U. Lalit stated that automatic arrest is not allowed under Section 498A of IPC and also opined that the involvement of civil society in the assistance of the administration of justice can be one of the steps, apart from the investigating officers and the concerned trial courts being sensitized. It is also essential to facilitate the closure of proceedings where a genuine settlement has been reached instead of parties being required to move High Courts only for that purpose.

The Supreme Court observed, “It is a matter of serious concern that a large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times, such complaints lead to uncalled-for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled-for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. This Court had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision was warranted.”

The Bench sought assistance from Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Atmaram Nadkarni and Senior Advocate V. Giri as amici curiae. The Court deliberated the subject of roping in family members to settle a matrimonial dispute.

The Bench stated, “Omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in the 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.”

Section 498A of IPC: Husband and 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:

Cruelty means:

  • (a) any willful 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.

Object and Statistical Background

Actually, the main object of the insertion of Section 498A of IPC by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 is punishing cruelty at the hands of the husband or his relatives against a wife, particularly when such cruelty had the potential to result in the suicide or murder of a woman. But, in recent times, this provision has been abused. At times, this results in the harassment and even arrest of innocent family members, including women and senior citizens.

According to the Report of the National Crime Records Bureau in 2005, for a total of 58,319 cases reported under Section 498A of IPC, a total of 1,27,560 people were arrested, and 6,141 cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law. While in 2009, for a total of 89,546 cases reported, a total of 1,74,395 people were arrested and 8,352 cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law. According to the Report of Crime in India, 2013, the National Crime Records Bureau further pointed out that out of 4,66,079 cases that were pending at the start of 2013, only 7,258 resulted in conviction, while 38,165 ended in acquittal and 8,218 were withdrawn. The conviction rate of cases registered under Section 498A of IPC was also a staggeringly low 15.6%.

The main object behind the enactment of Section 498A of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and, at the same time, to save matrimonial homes from destruction. The husband and his family members may have differences of opinion in the dispute, for which arrest and judicial remand are not the answers. The ultimate object of every legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. With those objects, the Supreme Court from time to time laid down clear guidelines to prevent arrest and abuse of Section 498A of IPC.

Judicial Guidelines and Landmark Rulings

1. Chandra Bhan Case ((2008) 151 DLT 691)

The Court directed that no case under Section 498A / 406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of the ACP/DCP, and the arrest of the main accused should be made only after a thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.

2. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273)

The Court directed as follows:

  • Police officers should not automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A IPC is registered, but must satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down under Section 41 of Cr.P.C.
  • All police officers must be provided with a checklist containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
  • The police officer shall forward the checklist duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest while forwarding the accused before the Magistrate for further detention.
  • Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid renders the police officers concerned liable for departmental action and punishable for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
  • The Magistrate, while authorizing detention of the accused, shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid, and only after recording satisfaction will the Magistrate authorize detention.
  • Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall render them liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

3. Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2014) 2 SCC 1)

The Supreme Court directions include:

  • Arrest of relatives other than the husband could only be after permission from the concerned Magistrate.
  • There should be no arrest of relatives aged above 70 years.
  • Power of the police to straightaway arrest must be prohibited.
  • While granting permission, the court must ascertain that there is prima facie material of the accused having done some overt and covert acts.
  • The offence should be compoundable and bailable.
  • The role of each complainant must be specified in the complaint, and the complaint must be accompanied by a signed affidavit.
  • A copy of the preliminary enquiry report should be furnished to the accused.

4. Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Judgment dated 27-07-2017)

The Supreme Court directions are as follows:

  • In every District, one or more Family Welfare Committees should be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities, preferably comprising three members. Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
  • Every complaint under Section 498A of IPC received by the police or the Magistrate should be referred to and looked into by such Committee. Such Committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication.
  • The report of such Committee should be given within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint. The Committee may give a brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.
  • Till the report of the Committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. The report may then be considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.
  • Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area.
  • In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other Senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the District to dispose of the proceedings, including closing the criminal case if the dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord.
  • Personal appearance of all family members, and particularly outstation members, may not be required; the court may permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting the progress of the trial.
  • These directions will not apply to offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.

(Note: The Malimath Committee had also suggested that the word “wife” under Cr.P.C. be amended to include a “woman living with a man like his wife,” which means the woman would also be entitled to alimony.)

Conclusion

All the directions of the Supreme Court in different cases at different times relating to family disputes share the ultimate object of every legal system: to punish the guilty and protect the innocent.