Sayani Banerjee | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 8th August 2020
INTRODUCTION
Previously, cases on matrimonial cruelty of a woman were dealt with by general provisions of Indian Penal Code like hurt, grievous hurt, assault etc. In the year 1983, the Indian Penal Code was amended for inserting Section 498A which primarily concerns “Cruelty against women”. The main objective behind this amendment was to protect women from being harassed by her husband or relatives of the husband. An offence under this section is cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable.
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code
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 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.[i]
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A OF IPC
As per the reports of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), out of 4,66,079 cases that were pending in the start of 2013, only 7,258 were convicted while 38,165 were acquitted and 8,218 were withdrawn. The conviction rate of cases registered under Section 498A IPC was also a staggering low at 15.6%. This provision has been always been in the news with allegations of false complaints and very low conviction rate.[ii]
There are many instances where the woman has filed the complaint with a mala fide intention of causing harassment to her husband and in-laws. In such cases, even though the husband and his relatives get acquitted, they suffer from immense mental and economic distress. The media coverage further hampers the reputation of the accused. According to the Indian Courts, misuse of 498A can be termed as legal terrorism.[iii]
This article would further discuss the Judgments delivered by the Supreme Court on the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Given below are the Top 10 Supreme Court Judgments on the misuse of Section 498A of IPC
1. KANS RAJ V. STATE OF PUNJAB[iv] (2000)
FACTS
Sunita Kumari was found dead at the residence of her in-laws in Punjab. The death was found to have occurred not under the ordinary circumstances but was the result of suffocation. After investigation and prosecution, charges were filed under the husband and in-laws of the deceased.
JUDGEMENT
The Court observed that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or any other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case. Thus, charge-sheet and criminal prosecution against the in-laws were quashed.
2. SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA[v] (2005)
FACTS
The petition was filed under Article 32 of Indian Constitution for declaring Section 498A of IPC as unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are no longer falsely accused. Further, prayers were made that if any allegation under this section was unfounded then strict actions must be taken against him.
JUDGEMENT
It was observed that there have been many instances where the complaints were not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
The Court opined that merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, it does not allow unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. Till the time the legislature does not find a solution to the frivolous complaints, the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework.
3. NEELU CHOPRA & ANR. V. BHARATI[vi] (2009)
FACTS
The appellant Neelu Chopra and Krishan Sarup Chopra are husband-wife and the respondent Bharti was their daughter-in-law. According to Bharati, her married life with Rajesh (son of appellants) was not very smooth as there were unreasonable demands for doubts and misbehaviour from Rajesh and his parents. Thus, in 1993, Bharati filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A of IPC. In 2006, Rajesh expired and hence the present case only lies against the in-laws.
JUDGEMENT
The Court observed that the complaint did not show as to which accused had committed what offence and what was the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations were made against him more precisely but he was no more and had already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, on the basis of vague and general complaint which was silent about the precise acts of the appellants. The Court thus directed to quash the complaint under Section 482 of CrPC.
4. MANJU RAM KALITA V. STATE OF ASSAM[vii] (2009)
FACTS
The wife alleged that her marital relationship was not cordial as her husband used to torture her mentally and physically. She left her matrimonial home and started residing with her father but later got to know that her husband has remarried a lady. The husband was charged under Section 498A of IPC but he denied all the allegations and preferred an appeal before the apex court.
JUDGEMENT
The court relying on several precedents observed that the meaning of “Cruelty” differs in each statutory provision and hence must be established in the context of Section 498A of IPC. The conduct of the man, the seriousness of his acts must be compared with the likeliness of the woman to commit suicide, etc. It must be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels would not come under the purview of “cruelty”. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction order under Section 498A of IPC.
5, PREETI GUPTA & ANR. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND[viii] (2010)
FACTS
The complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar in the year 2006. In 2007, she alleged her husband and her husband’s relatives for demanding dowry and assaulting her physically. Thereafter, a complaint was filed under Section 498A and others of IPC.
The present appeal is filed by Preeti Gupta, the married sister-in-law and her husband against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Jharkhand.
JUDGEMENT
The Court observed that the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
In the present case, the allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court directed to quash all the charges filed against the appellants as the same could not be proved.
6. BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. V. MONICA[ix] (2014)
FACTS
Monica married Vikas Sharma (son of appellants), who had two children from his first wife. After their marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife deteriorated and Monica left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against her husband and other appellants (father-in-law and mother-in-law) under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC. Monica also claimed maintenance of 2 lakhs per month in addition to the interim maintenance.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court observed that all the essential elements required for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC were not fulfilled in the present case. The respondent took all coercive steps to ensure the presence of appellants in India without making any effort at conciliation. The court was of the view that merely because the mother-in-law kicked the daughter-in-law and threatened her with divorce, the same did not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. Thus, no case was made out against the appellants under Section 498A of IPC.
7. ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR[x] (2014)
FACTS
The wife alleged that her in-laws demanded 8 lakh Rupees, a Maruti car, an air-conditioner etc. from her family. When her husband got to know about these demands, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It was also alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
Denying these allegations, the husband filed an appeal for anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court.
JUDGEMENT
The Court observed that since Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, women often use it as a weapon rather than a shield to harass her husband and his relatives. Sometimes, even the bedridden grandparents of the husband, their relatives living abroad are brought under this provision on false allegations. The Court laid down certain guidelines stating that arrest under this section must be made after reaching reasonable satisfaction and after conducting a proper investigation as to the genuineness of allegation. The Magistrate shall not order detention casually and mechanically. The Court, therefore, granted provisional bail to the accused.
8. BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON V. STATE OF BIHAR[xi] (2017)
FACTS
According to the facts of the case, it was alleged that the husband and his relatives killed the wife by setting her on fire. Aggrieved by the decisions passed by the lower Courts, the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
JUDGEMENT
The court after going through the oral and documentary evidences observed that the lower courts have erred in giving the conviction orders. The evidences on the brother-in-law and sister-in-law torturing the deceased could not be proved beyond reasonable doubts. Further, the appellants used to reside in a different village and they had no common intention with the husband for committing the crime. Accordingly, the conviction orders were set aside.
9. RAJESH SHARMA & OTHERS V. STATE OF U.P.[xii] (2017)
FACTS
Sneha’s father gave dowry to Rajesh at the time of their marriage. Rajesh was not happy with the amount of dowry given and hence started abusing his wife. Sneha filed a case under Section 498A of IPC against her husband and his relatives. The present appeal was filed by the relatives seeking for certain directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of IPC. The main contention was that in most of the cases, all family members are dragged to settle a matrimonial dispute even when they are not party to the case.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
Family Welfare Committee:
- The District Legal Services Authorities must constitute at least one committee in every district comprising of three para legal/volunteers/social workers/other citizen who are willing to work.
- Such constitution and working will be reviewed at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of District Legal Services Authority.
- No committee member can be called as witness.
- Any complaint received from the police/the Magistrate under Section 498A of IPC must be referred to and looked into by the committee.
- The committee’s report will be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred within one month from the date of receiving the complaint. No arrest can be made before that.
Investigating Officer: The Investigating Officer for complaints under Section 498A should undergo a training of four months for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate.
Bail: When a bail application is filed to the Public Prosecutor/complainant with a day’s notice then it must be decided on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items cannot be regarded as a ground of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can be protected.
NRIs: Impounding of passports or issuing Red Corner Notice must not be a routine for NRIs.
Video Conferencing: Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court can grant exemption and permit video conferencing.
The Court observed that large number of cases under Section 498A on trivial and false issues is a matter of serious concern. Apart from directing the investigating officers and trial courts, involving the civil society in administration of justice can be one of the steps to remedy this situation
10. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR & ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE & ORS.[xiii] (2018)
FACTS
The petition was filed under Article 32 of Indian Constitution seeking uniform system of monitoring and reviewing the cases filed under Section 498A of IPC. It was contended that there are no concrete data specifying that the section has been misused. The social purpose behind Section 498A is being lost as a result of various qualifications and restrictions prescribed by the apex court in case of Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P and another.
JUDGEMENT
The three judge bench referred to the principles laid down in the cases of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P[xiv], D.K. Basu v. State of W.B[xv], Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.[xvi] and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[xvii] and directed the investigating officers to be careful and be guided by the same.
The Court held that the directions with respect to Family Welfare Committees and their duties are not in accordance with the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The offence of cruelty is a non-bailable and cognizable offence but due to the direction making it impossible to arrest before the report of such committee has made this ineffective. Thus the direction given in Rajesh Sharma case has been modified by the court.
- The direction with respect to the constitution and duties of Family Welfare Committee has been declared impermissible.
- The directions pertaining to the 498A settlement has been modified to include that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC. The High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,[xviii] shall dispose of the same.
[i] Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
[ii] “Crime in India 2013 statistics” Published by National Crime Records Bureau
[iii]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Misuse-of-dowry-provisions-is-legal-terrorism Court/articleshow/7615680.cms
[iv] Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324
[v] Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI, (2005) 6 SCC 281
[vi] Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharati, AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 2950
[vii] Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330
[viii] Preeti Gupta & Anr v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 3363
[ix] Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. v. Monica, (2014) 3 SCC 383
[x] Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
[xi] Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2017) 6 SCC 792
[xii] Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 821
[xiii] Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Another v. UOI Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 443
[xiv] Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
[xv] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416
[xvi] Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
[xvii] Supra note x
[xviii] Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
the wife filed a complaint against the husband father in-law and mother in-law in the year 2016 under section 498 A. dowry harassment physically and mentally. the marriage was performed in the year 1996. all the years the de-facto complainant lived along with husband. after 26 later she filed a complaint against the husband is it enforceable in the 498 A