Analysis of Supreme court Judgment on section 498A IPC

 

Analysis of Supreme court Judgment on section 498A IPC

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and Others1 redefined the important issue relating to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter pertained to as"the IPC"). Section 498-A was brought into the IPC in 1983 to check the imminence of atrocity to wedded women, which frequently led to dowry deaths.

2. In ordear to cover helpless women who were regularly getting abused and beaten and tortured by their separate misters and hubby's family members, multiple changes were made to IPC. Consequently, under Section 498A atrocity to a woman by her hubby or any relative of her hubby was made punishable with imprisonment for a term of three times and also with fine. This was further supported by Section 304B where a woman had committed self-murder within 7 times of her marriage or failed in circumstances raising a reasonable dubitation that some other person has committed an offence, vittles were being made for probe by Administrative Adjudicators. Further, the Indian Substantiation Act, 1872 was also amended to give that in cases where the woman had committed self-murder within 7 times of marriage and it's shown that her hubby or any other relation of her hubby had subordinated her to atrocity, also the Court may presume that similar self-murder was abetted by her hubby or similar relative of the hubby.

3. Still, since the Section was subject matter of contestation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was frequently being" used as munitions rather than guard by displeased women."2 Because of this, colorful judgments over time have also read down the Section.

4. In the Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another, the judgment of Rajesh Sharma and others. State ofU.P. and another3 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court came in question. In the Rajesh Sharma judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in order to help abuse ofS. 498-A, gave a number of directions similar as –

5. One or further Family Welfare Panels were to be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities in every quarter. Every complaint under Section 498A entered by the police or the Magistrate would also be pertained to and looked into by a similar Committee which would within one month give its report to a similar commission. Till the report was entered, no arrest would be typically affected.

6. The complaints under Section 498A and other connected offenses may be delved only by a designated Probing Officer of the area.

7. Further, in cases where an agreement is reached, the District and Sessions Judge or any other elderly Judicial Officer nominated by him could dispose of the proceedings and close the felonious case if disagreement is primarily related to nuptial disharmony.

8. Still, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day, If a bail operation was filed with at least one clear day's notice to the Public Prosecutor/ plaintiff. Recovery of disputed dowry particulars may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if conservation or other rights of woman/ minor children can else be defended.

9. In respect of persons naturally abiding out of India impounding of passports or allocation of Red Corner Notice shouldn't be a routine.

10. It'll be open to the District Judge or a designated elderly judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of nuptial controversies so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all similar cases are entrusted; and

11. Particular appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be needed and the trial court ought to grant impunity from particular appearance or permit appearance by videotape conferencing without negatively affecting progress of the trial.

In the Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined whether the Court in Rajesh Sharma could, by the system of interpretation, have issued above similar directions. With due reflections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to modify the directions issued in Rajesh Sharma case.

With respect to the constitution of Family Welfare Committee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that constitution of the Family Welfare Panels by the District Legal Services Authorities and the tradition of duties of the Panels and farther action thereof are beyond the IPC and the same doesn't really flow from any provision of the IPC and have nothing to do with the IPC. Consequently, the same was taboo.

Still, the Court issued direction to the officers probing under S 498-A to be careful and be guided by the principles proffered in the corner Supreme Court judgments of Joginder Kumarv. State ofU.P and others4,D.K. Basuv. State ofW.B5, Lalita Kumariv. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others6 and Arnesh Kumarv. State of Bihar and another7.

Farther, with respect to the direction regarding disposal of the case by District and Sessions Judge or any other elderly Judicial Officer nominated by him in cases where agreement was reached, the Court observed that the same wasn't a correct expression of law and in a felonious case which wasn't composite, only the concerned High Court has the power to quash proceedings underS. 498-A. Therefore the same couldn't be done by District or the Sessions judge and it was open to the parties to approach the High Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court didn't intrude with respect to the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and supposing that recovery of disputed dowry particulars may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail.

With respect to the directions regarding clubbing of" appearance of all family members and terminal members by videotape conferencing", the Court directed that an operation could be filed either under Section 205 or Section 317 of Criminal Procedure Code depending upon the stage at which the impunity is sought.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus, planted that some of the directions given in the Rajesh Sharma case had potentially entered into the legislative field. Keeping this in mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court shouldered a reappraisal of the directions and only retained the bones that find their bedrock within the Indian Penal Code-and in doing so- proffered a more balanced approach towards the operation of section 498A.

Read More:

Tax Litigation in India