Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A – Matrimonial disputes – Directions issued in Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, [2017] 9 SCR 529 – Modification in – Amicus Curiae contended that directions issued in the Rajesh Sharma case pertaining to s.498-A of IPC required reconsideration – Held: 1) Earlier, the Court had directed constitution of the Family Welfare Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed the duties of the Committees – The Committees were empowered to suggest a report failing which no arrest could be made – Directions pertaining to constitution of a Committee and conferment of power on the said Committee is impermissible as power conferred are beyond the Code of Criminal Procedure – 2) The Court had also issued direction that in cases where settlement is reached, the District and Sessions Judges were entrusted with power to dispose of the proceeding – This direction relating to settlement modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach High Court u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. – 3) The Court had directed that complaints u/s.498-A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated investigating officer of the area – This direction has to be read in conjunction with the direction that Director General of Police of each State is to ensure that investigating officers are imparted training with regard to the principles laid down by Supreme Court relating to arrest – 4) Further, the Court had left it open to the District Judge or a designated judicial officer to club all connected cases between the parties and had also exempted family members, particularly outstation members, from personal appearance – These directions modified to the extent that an application has to be filed either u/s.205 Cr.P.C. or s.317 Cr.P.C. depending upon the stage at which exemption is sought – 5) Nothing erroneous in the earlier directions relating to bail and impounding of passports or issuance of Red corner notice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41, 41-A, 205, 317 and 482. Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. The core issue is whether the Court in Rajesh Sharma could, by the method of interpretation, have issued such directions. On a perusal of the directions, it is found that the Court has 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, are beyond the Code and the same does not really flow from any provision of the Code. There can 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 cognizable and non-bailable. The fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind. The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar are in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 CrPC and Section 41-A CrPC. Similarly, the guidelines stated in Joginder Kumar and D.K. Basu are within the framework of the Code and the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency. The purpose has been to see that the investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest people at its whim and fancy. [Para 33] [46-A-D]
2. In Rajesh Sharma, there is introduction of a third agency which has nothing to do with the Code and that apart, the Committees have been empowered to suggest a report failing which no arrest can be made. The directions to settle a case after it is registered is not a correct expression of law. A criminal proceeding which is not compundable can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. When settlement takes place, then both the parties can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court, considering the bonafide of the petition, may quash the same. The power rests with the High Court. [Para 34][46-E-F]
3. The directions pertaining to constitution of a Committee and conferment of power on the said Committee is erroneous in light of the statutory provisions and Supreme Court judgments. However, the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and postulating that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail would stand on a different footing. They are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the Code. When an application for bail is entertained, proper conditions have to be imposed but recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground while rejecting an application for grant of bail under Section 498-A IPC. That cannot be considered at that stage. Therefore, there is nothing erroneous in directions relating to application for bail and issuance of Red Corner notice. So far as directions allowing the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes and exemption of family members from personal appearance is concerned, an application has to be filed either under Section 205 CrPC or Section 317 CrPC depending upon the stage at which the exemption is sought. [Para 35] [48-A-C]
4. While declaring 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 , D.K. Basu , Lalita Kumari and Arnesh Kumar. It will also be 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 this Court relating to arrest. Thus, direction issued in Rajesh Sharma relating to investigating officers investigating complaints u/s.498-A of IPC shall be read in conjunction with the direction given above. [Paras 38 and 39] [49-D-G]
5. Insofar as direction relating to settlement is concerned, it is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh, shall dispose of the same. [Para 40] [50-A]
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260 ; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC
416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 ; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713 ; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128 – relied on.
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others (2005) 6 SCC 281 ; B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ; Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and Another [1989] 2 SCR 612 ; Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2017 (8) SCALE 313 ; [2017] 9 SCR 529 : Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Others (1993) 2 SCC
746 : [1993] 2 SCR 581; State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Others (1995) 4 SCC 262 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 44 ; Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244 : [1984] 2 SCR 795 ; Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC
241 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 ; Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another (2018) 5 SCC 1 ; Suresh Seth v. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation and Others (2005) 13 SCC 287 ; Census Commissioner and Others v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796 : [2014] 11 SCR 463 ; N.D. Jayal and Another v. Union of India and Others (2004) 9 SCC 362 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152 ; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248 : [1970] 3 SCR 530 ; Premium Granites and Another v. State of T.N. and Others (1994) 2 SCC 691 : [1994] 1 SCR
579 ; M.P. Oil Extraction and Another v. State of M.P. and Others (1997) 7 SCC 592 : [1997] 1 Suppl. SCR
671 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Another (2011) 7 SCC 639 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 : State of Punjab and Others v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others (1998) 4 SCC 117 : [1998] 1 SCR 1120 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.