While dowry deaths remain a harsh reality in India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has shown concern at the alarming number of false cases. Read on to know more.

The controversy surrounding Section 498 A never seems to subside. In a new directive the SC has passed fresh guidelines to be followed raising the dubious effectiveness of the law and the need for change. Refering to previous judgements in Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand, Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court said that it has long been acknowledged by the judges of this country that there was a need to stop measures to prevent the misuse of the section.

The two-judge bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit while noting that Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable objective of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife, concurred with the submission made by ASG AS Nadkarni and Senior Advocate V Giri that there is a growing tendency to abuse the said provision to rope in all the relatives including parents of advanced age, minor children, siblings, grand-parents and uncles on the strength of vague and exaggerated allegations without there being any verifiable evidence of physical or mental harm or injury. At times, the court says, this results in harassment and even arrest of innocent family members, including women and senior citizens, which may hamper any possible reconciliation and reunion of a couple.

Expressing that ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand, the Court has noted that omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in 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.

Showing concern at the alarming number of false cases, High Courts and the Supreme Court (Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar) at many instances have given directions to check such abuse. The Madras High Court in 2008 while issuing guidelines had said: “Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations. Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant. By suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a considerable extent by the Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates themselves accede to the bare requests of the police without examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative effects thereby, the very purpose of the legislation would be defeated and the doors of conciliation would be closed forever.”

According to reports of National Crime Record Bureau in 2005, for a total 58,319 cases reported under Section 498A 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 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.

Over the period of time, the conviction rate under the section has been decreasing. The National Crime Records Bureau pointed out that 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%

However, the dowry deaths in India has been increasing even though there is less coverage of such of reports in the media. In April this year, Maneka Gandhi, the Minister for Women and Child Development inofmed that a total number of 9038, 10709 and 10050 cases have been registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 during 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. She said that a total number of 8233, 8083 and 8455 cases were registered of Dowry Death in the country during 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. She also told the House that the Government of India regularly conducts awareness generation programmes and publicity campaigns on various laws relating to women including Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 through workshops, fairs, cultural programmes, seminars, training programmes, etc.

The Court in this appeal, however, said that their function is not to legislate but only to interpret the law, and while doing so laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable. It also said that the just and fair procedure being part of fundamental right to life, interpretation is required to be placed on a penal provision so that its working is not unjust, unfair or unreasonable.

The bench said that it has incidental power to quash even a non-compoundable case of private nature, if continuing the proceedings is found to be oppressive. While stifling a legitimate prosecution is against public policy, if the proceedings in an offence of private nature are found to be oppressive, power of quashing is exercised, the bench further observed.

According to submission made by the Additional Solicitor General, there must be some preliminary inquiry on the lines of observations in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh. Arrest of a relative other than husband could only be after permission from the concerned Magistrate. He further said that there should be no arrest of relatives aged above 70 years. Power of the police to straight away arrest must be prohibited.

He also argued that while granting permission, the court must ascertain that there is prima facie material of the accused having done some overt and covert act. The offence should be made compoundable and bailable. The role of each accused must be specified in the complaint and the complaint must be accompanied by a signed affidavit. The copy of the preliminary enquiry report should be furnished to the accused.

Driving home the need for involvement of civil society for aid of justice and senstization of investigating officers as well as facilitating closure of proceedings where a genuine settlement has been reached instead of parties being required to move High Court only for that purpose, the Hon’ble court taking into consideartion the background of the issue in this appeal and also the 243 Report of the Law Commission as well as the 140 Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions (September, 2011) and earlier decisions of the Supreme Court has given the following directions:

• In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.
• The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.
• The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
• Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate 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.
• Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint.
• The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.
• Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.
• The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.
• Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.
• The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.
• It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper
• Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Suchdesignations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today;
• 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 of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord;
• If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;
• In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;
• It will be open to 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 so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and
• Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.
• These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.