Husband's extra-marital relationship affairs does not amount to cruelty

Husband's extra-marital relationship affairs does not amount to cruelty:

In the instant case, where the question arose that whether a husband’s extra-marital affair amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC, the Bench of Dipak Misra and S.J Mukhopadhayay, JJ., observed that husband’s intimacy with another woman during the subsistence of marriage and failure to perform his marital responsibilities would not amount to cruelty, even though the evidences in the instant case point out towards an extra marital affair, the same cannot be termed as a form of mental cruelty of such a degree that would compel the wife to commit suicide. The Bench further observed that extra- marital affair if proved would be immoral and illegal, but it would take a different character altogether if the prosecution proves that the accused person’s conduct is such that it drove the wife to end her life.

As per the facts of the present case, the wife of one of the appellant (Rakesh) had committed suicide, allegedly after coming to know about her husband’s illicit relationship with another woman, thereby leading to the appellants’ conviction under Sections 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of IPC. It was argued by the appellants’ counsel Harish Raichura that the husband had already divorced the deceased before the suicide took place. The prosecution counsel Anurag Ahluwalia however contended that the husband’s extra- marital affair led to several arguments between them finally compelling the deceased to commit suicide. The appellants were found guilty by the Sessions Court and were convicted; further the conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court.

                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2009

Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors. ...   Appellants

                                   Versus

State of Gujarat                        ... Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 444/2005 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, who had found the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentenced Ghusabhai Raisinghbhai Chorasia, appellant no.1 to suffer five years imprisonment, Rakesh Ghusabhai Chorasia, appellant no.2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause and other accused persons, namely, Bakuben W/o Ghusabhai Chorasia and Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai, appellant nos. 3 and 4 herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- with a default clause under Section 306 IPC. That apart, separate sentences were imposed under Section 498A and 201 with the stipulation that all the sentences would run concurrently. Be it noted, the appellants were tried along with two other accused persons, namely, Sangitaben w/o. Vijaybhai and Vijay Ghusabhai Chorasia who were acquitted by the learned trial Judge. It is also apt to note here that the State had also preferred two criminal appeals, one for enhancement of sentence and the other challenging the acquittal of the other two accused persons and both the appeals were dismissed along with the appeal filed by the appellants in a common judgment.

2. The prosecution case, bereft of unnecessary details, is that the marriage between the deceased Biniben and Rakesh was solemnized approximately eight years before the date of occurrence, i.e. 4.3.2004. As put forth by the prosecution, Rakesh, husband of the deceased, had illicit relationsHIP with Jasuben, a divorcee. Despite the said situation two children were born in the wedlock but the compatibility between the husband and wife and the harmony of family life could not be sustained. When the first child was three months old, the deceased was driven out by her husband and she came to her parental home and stayed there for sometime. After the intervention of the elders and relatives a settlement was arrived at and thereafter she came to stay in her in- laws house. It was the further case of the prosecution that the husband was keen in his extra-marital affair and that had led to more marital discord and bitterness. The in-laws, as alleged, used to take away the income earned by her. A time came when she was compelled to stay on the terrace of the house where she committed suicide on 4th of March, 2004.

3. As the case of the prosecution further gets uncurtained, the dead body was cremated without informing the parents of the deceased and the factum of the death was reported by the father-in-law of the deceased on 14th of March, 2004 and eventually the mother of the deceased came to know about the death on 17th of March, 2004 and thereafter reported at the Police Station in Jamnagar. After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigating agency proceeded with the investigation and recorded the statements of 25 witnesses and eventually placed the charge- sheet under Sections 498A, 306 and Section 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, before the competent court. After the charge- sheet was filed, the learned Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Session.

4. The accused persons abjured their guilt and wanted to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution in order to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons, examined 25 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. The learned trial Judge placing reliance on the ocular as well as the documentary evidence came to hold that four accused persons, namely, father-in-law A-1, husband A-2, mother-in-law A-3 and the woman with whom the husband was having illicit relationship, A-4, guilty of the offences. However, the trial Judge acquitted the elder brother of the husband and his wife for lack of evidence.

7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005. As stated earlier, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005 assailing the judgment of the acquittal of two accused persons.

8. The High Court appreciating the evidence brought on record, declined to interfere in the appeals preferred by the State and resultantly all the appeals stood dismissed.

9. Be it noted, the principal witnesses on whom the prosecution relied are Dakshaben Shantilal Shah, PW-9, a social worker at Vikas Vidhyalay (Vadhvan), Miraben Devsinhbhai, PW-21, sister of the deceased, Champaben Devsinhbhai, PW-18, mother of the deceased, Kanaiyabhai Devsinhbhai, PW-19, brother of the deceased and Natubhai Hirabhai, PW- 17, Sarpanch of village Rajsitapur.

10. Accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 took the plea that there was a divorce between the deceased and the accused No. 2, her husband; that she was staying on the terrace of the house; that she committed suicide by consuming poison; and that the accused persons had no role in it. The defence, to substantiate its plea, examined one witness and got two documents exhibited.

11. We have heard Mr. Harish Raichura, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the State.

12. On a careful scrutiny of the findings of the learned trial Judge and that of the High Court, it is noticeable that both the Courts have found that cruelty, as alleged by the prosecution under Section 498A IPC was established as a result of which the deceased committed suicide. It is quite clear from the findings and evidence on record that there was no demand of dowry. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has proceeded on the base that there was cruelty as per the first limb of Section 498A IPC.

13. The singular issue that requires to be scrutinized is whether there was such cruelty by the husband and his relations that could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. The stand of the accused persons, as has been indicated hereinabove, was that the husband had already divorced the deceased and she was staying on the terrace. On a proper x-ray of the material brought on record, it is manifest that the prosecution has brought on evidence, three documents, exhibits 65 to 67, on record to show that there was divorce. The sister of the deceased, Miraben Devsinhbhai, PW-21, has categorically deposed that she had talked to the deceased on telephone before her death and the deceased had told her that there has been a divorce between her husband and herself and she was staying on the terrace of the house and will leave for the parental home after the 'Holi' festival.

14. The documents that have been produced by the prosecution, namely, Exhibits 67 to 69 have not been believed by the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court on the ground that there is some unacceptable discrepancy.

15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention that the Holi festival in the said year fell on 6.3.2004 and the occurrence took place on March 4, 2004. It is also noticeable that the sister of the deceased had volunteered to speak about the conversation of divorce. The document shows that there was a divorce as per the customs. There is material on record to show that she was staying on the terrace. In this factual backdrop what is to be seen is whether there has been a cruelty which compelled her to commit suicide. In this regard, we may fruitfully refer to Section 498A of the IPC, which reads as under:

"498A. Husband or 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.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) any wilful 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."

16. This Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharashtra[1], examining the scope of 498A, has observed thus:

"The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms of Section 498-A."

17. In Gurnaib Singh V. State of Punjab[2], while analyzing the aforesaid provision, it has been opined that Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC defines cruelty to mean "any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide". Clause (b) of the Explanation pertains to unlawful demand and Clause (a) can take in its ambit mental cruelty.

18. From the aforesaid authorities it is quite clear that the first limb of Section 498A, which refers to cruelty, has nothing to do with demand of dowry. In the present case, in fact, there is no demand of dowry. If the evidence is appropriately appreciated, the deceased was pained and disturbed as the husband was having an illicit affair with the appellant no.4. Whether such a situation would amount to cruelty under the first limb of Section 498A IPC is to be seen. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal V. State of Gujarat[3], while dealing with extra marital relationship, has held thus:

"Marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their upbringing, services in the home, support, affection, love, liking and so on. Extramarital relationship as such is not defined in the Penal Code. Though, according to the prosecution in this case, it was that relationship which ultimately led to mental harassment and cruelty within the Explanation to Section 498-A and that A-1 had abetted the wife to commit suicide."

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx "We are of the view that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. Harassment, of course, need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life. We, on facts, found that the alleged extramarital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that A-1 had ever intended or acted in such a manner which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit suicide."

The Court further proceeded to state:

"Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide."

19. After holding as aforesaid, the Court found on facts and especially referring to suicide note that one can infer that the deceased was so possessive of her husband, and was always under an emotional stress that she might lose her husband and that apart she had exonerated the husband and accordingly it would not come within the scope and ambit of Section 306 IPC.

20. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the factum of divorce has not been believed by the learned trial Judge and the High Court. But the fact remains is that the husband and the wife had started living separately in the same house and the deceased had told her sister that there was severance of status and she would be going to her parental home after the 'Holi' festival. True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.

21. Presently, adverting to the involvement of the other accused persons, that is, appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, we find that there is no allegation of any kind of physical torture. The evidence brought on record against them with regard to cruelty is absolutely sketchy and not convincing. It has been alleged that the mother-in-law used to rob her money which she earned as wages. The said fact has really not been established. As far as appellant no. 4, Jesuben, is concerned, there is only one singular allegation that at one public place, i.e. in a 'mela', she had threatened the deceased that she would be divorced by her husband. On the basis of the said evidence, it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. Once we are holding that the accused-appellants are not guilty of the offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC, the conviction under Section 201 IPC is also not sustainable.

22. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set aside. As they are on bail, they be discharged of their bail bonds.

........................................................J.

[DIPAK MISRA] .........................................................J.

[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA] NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 18, 2015.

Before arrest sec.41 of Cr.P.C. Notice is mandatory in sec.498-A IPC Dowry cases.

Before arrest sec.41 of Cr.P.C. Notice is mandatory in sec.498-A IPC Dowry cases.

41. When police may arrest without warrant .- (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person—
*[(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence;

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:-

(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary- (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing.

**[Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not Required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.]

(ba) against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence;”’

*[sub-clauses (a) and (b) substituted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2008]

**[Proviso to sub-clause (b) inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2010]

*[(2) Subject to the provisions of section 42, no person concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a Magistrate.” }

*[sub-clause (2) substituted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2008]

*[41A. Notice of appearance before police officer. – (1) The police officer *[shall], in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

**[(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.”

*[Clause 41A Inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2008 and sub-clause (1) further modified by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2010]

**[sub-clause (4) substituted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2010]

41B. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest. – Every police officer while making an arrest shall-

(a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification;

(b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be-

(i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made;

(ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and

(c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest.

*[Inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2008]

Discharge of accused u/s 239 of Cr.P.C in sec.498a/406 IPC

Discharge of accused u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. in sec.498a/406 IPC.

Bench: A Bhan, D Jain

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1716 of 2007

PETITIONER:

ONKAR NATH MISHRA & ORS.

RESPONDENT:

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007

BENCH:

ASHOK BHAN & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2516 of 2007)

D.K. JAIN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the three accused arises out of the order dated 5.3.2007, passed by the High Court of Delhi, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition No. 92 of 1998 filed by them. In the said petition, a prayer was made by the appellants to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceedings arising out of First Information Report (F.I.R) No. 155 of 1995, instituted in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the father-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of the complainant.

3. A few facts, leading to the present proceedings and necessary to dispose of the appeal are:

The marriage between the complainant and appellant No. 3 was solemnized at New Delhi on 5.12.1993. After the marriage, the complainant was residing at her matrimonial home in Delhi. It appears that there was some matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, appellant No. 3, which resulted in filing of a complaint by the complainant on 17.5.1994 in the Crime against Women ( CAW for short) Cell, Delhi, inter alia, alleging that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws. However, the matter was compromised on 26.6.1994 and as agreed, on 3.7.1994, the complainant joined her husband at Bijnore (U.P.), where he was posted. However, she returned back to her parental home in Delhi in mid-August 1994, as she was expecting a child.

4. On 8.11.1994, she lodged another complaint in CAW Cell. The said complaint was the foundation for registration of F.I.R. No. 155 of 1995, alleging commission of offences by the appellants under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code ( I.P.C. , for short). For the sake of ready reference, the same is extracted below:

I, Neetu, d/o R.P. Dixit W/o Ashutosh Misra wish to inform you that as per compromise in the Cell on 22.6.1994 with my husband I went to Bijnore on 3.7.1994 on the suggestion of my husband I came to Delhi along with my

parents on 12.8.1994 for delivery. I gave birth to a son on 4.9.1994. My husband came to hospital on 5.9.1994 and requested me to

come to Bijnore after 40 days. He gave me no money for expenditure. When I left Bijnore he gave me only Rs.1/- only. I did not receive any phone from him till 7th November, 1994. Then I phoned him and told him that he was

required to go to Cell on 28.10.1994. He told me that he has no time to go to Cell and to bring me to Bijnore. You can come to Bijnore if you apologize to my father. Keep him happy, obey my sister and talk to your father to give you Rs.50,000/- and VCR to bring with you. Then I can come to bring you. If you come here alone with the child, we will give you good beatings.

My husband came to Rajouri Garden every

Saturday Sunday in September October

and on Dushera & Diwali. This can be verified from neighbour Hira Lal and Smt. Nirmala

Sharma, President Mahilla Jagriti Samiti. Almost 2 weeks ago, Hira Lal informed me that my husband took away all my belongings with him at 4 A.M.

In view of above facts, I think these three persons are conspiring. Therefore, I request that my case may be re-opened and my father- in-law, husband and sister-in-law may be

punished.

(emphasis supplied)

5. As noted above, on the basis of the said report, an F.I.R. was registered on 4.4.1995, wherein date and hours of occurrence was mentioned as 5.12.1993 to 12.8.1994. Before the registration of the F.I.R., another statement of the complainant was recorded wherein she alleged misbehaviour on the part of her father-in-law, appellant No. 1. In the said statement, she stated that, my father-in-law and sister-in-law clearly warned him that till the time I will not bring Rs.50,000/- cash and V.C.R. they will not keep me . She also alleged that when she asked for return of the Stridhan, they refused to return the same with fraudulent intentions . After investigation by the CAW Cell, the charge-sheet was filed on 15.7.1995. In the charge-sheet, it has been recorded that despite issue of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and her father by the ASI, neither the complainant nor her father turned up to take back her Stridhan , which was alleged to be with the appellants. It has been noted that the complainant does not want to take back her Stridhan.

6. At the time of framing of charge, the Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that no case under Section 406 had been made out against any of the accused and further case under Section 498A was also not made out against the father-in-law and sister-in-law, being appellants No. 1 and 2. Accordingly, he discharged all the appellants for offences under Section 406 I.P.C. and appellants No. 1 and 2 for offences under Section 498A I.P.C.

7. Against the said order, the State preferred Revision Petition to the Sessions Court. Vide order dated 24.1.1998, the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. was made out against all the appellants. Accordingly, he directed the trial court to proceed with the case against all the appellants under Sections 498A/406/34 I.P.C. and frame the charges accordingly.

8. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court. As noted above, the said Revision Petition was dismissed. It is this order of the High Court, which is questioned in this appeal.

9. Appellant No. 1, appearing in person, argued the case on behalf of all the appellants. It was vehemently contended that the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate that the first complaint dated 8.11.1994 lodged by the complainant on the CAW Cell, which was the foundation for the registration of F.I.R. No. 155 of 1995, did not contain any allegation of demand of dowry or harassment by appellants No. 1 and 2. It was submitted that even if the allegations in the statement of the complainant dated 4.4.1995 are taken at their face value, yet the appellants cannot be connected with offences under Sections 406 or 498A I.P.C., particularly when admittedly after 3.7.1994, when she joined her husband at Bijnore, she had never lived with appellants No. 1 and 2. It is asserted that the said statement was an after thought, made after almost 8 months of the alleged occurrence.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the State supported the view taken by the High Court.

11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.

12. In State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy , a three judge Bench of this Court had observed that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a person s liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized.

13. Then again in State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Som Nath Thapa and others , a three judge Bench of this Court, after noting three pairs of sections viz. (i) Sections 227 and 228 insofar as sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245 (1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of framing of charge or discharge, stated thus:

if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that

commission of the offence is a probable

consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have

committed the offence it can frame the

charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has

committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

14. In a later decision in State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni , this Court, referring to several previous decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

15. Having noted the broad guidelines to be kept in view while deciding whether or not a charge against the accused is to be framed, we may advert to the facts of the present case to decide whether on the basis of the material placed before the trial court, it can reasonably be held that a case for framing charges against the appellants under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. exists. However, before undertaking this exercise it would be apposite to briefly note the essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C.

16. According to Section 405 I.P.C., the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. (See: The Superintendent & remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. S.K. Roy )

17. The term cruelty , which has been made punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. has been defined in the Explanation appended to the said Section, to mean: (i) any wilful 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 (ii) 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. Therefore, the consequences of cruelty , which are either likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury, danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman or the harassment of a woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand are required to be established in order to bring home an offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

18. In the present case, from a plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant on 8.11.1994, extracted above, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint, taken on their face value, do not make out a prima facie case against the appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. It is manifestly clear from the afore- extracted complaint as also the relevant portion of the charge- sheet that there is neither any allegation of entrustment of any kind of property by the complainant to the appellants nor its misappropriation by them. Furthermore, it is also noted in the charge-sheet itself that the complainant had refused to take articles back when this offer was made to her by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, the very pre- requisite of entrustment of the property and its misappropriation by the appellants are lacking in the instant case. We have no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out.

19. As regards the applicability of Section 498A I.P.C., in the complaint dated 8.11.1994 there is not even a whisper of a wilful conduct of appellants No. 1 and 2 of harassment of the complainant at their hands with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A read with Explanation thereto. The complaint refers to the talk the complainant purports to have had with her husband, appellant No. 3, who is alleged to have told her to come to Bijnore if she apologizes to his father; keeps him happy; obeys his sister and talks to her father (complainant s) to give her Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. and brings these articles to Bijnore. We are convinced that the allegation of misbehaviour on the part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by the complainant in her subsequent statement, dated 4.4.1995, was an after thought and not bona fide. Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, we find that charge under Section 498A I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.

20. Consequently, we allow the appeal partly; quash the charge framed against all the appellants under Section 406 I.P.C.; quash the charge framed against appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal of appellant No. 3 against framing of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. Needless to add that the trial court shall now proceed with the trial untrammeled by any observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order or by us in this judgment.

Guideline for Arrest in section 498a IPC-Dowry Cases -Allahabad High Court in U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 3322 of 2010

Petitioner :- Re: In The Matter Of Matrimonial Disputes
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Gangwar
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Abhay Raj Singh,Pankaj Naqvi

Hon’ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.

On 8.8.2011, there was an extensive hearing in this case when Ms. Leena Jauhari,
Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. Lucknow, Smt. Poonam Sikand, Additional L.R
and Tanuja Srivastava, I.G.( Public Grievances), Ms. G. Sridevi, Secretary, U.P.
State Legal Services Authority, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organising Secretary, Allahabad
High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sister Sheeba
Jose Advocates on behalf of the intervenor ‘Sahyog,’ Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned
Government Advocate and Sri Bimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A appeared and were
heard at length.

An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director General of Police on
10.8.2011. Another affidavit was also filed on behalf of Special Secretary
(Home), U.P. on 12.8.2011. An application was also moved by the intervenor
‘Sahyog.’

This Court appreciates the positive contributions and suggestions of all the
aforesaid advocates and other State officials and that this pro bono litigation
is being taken up in the right non-adversarial spirit, with the aim to ensure
that wherever allegations are not very grave, in order to save families, and
children and indeed the institution of marriage, an effort be first made for
reconciling matrimonial disputes by mediation before steps can be taken for
prosecuting offenders, if they are called for.

In Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363 the learned members of the bar have been reminded of
their noble profession and their noble tradition and of their responsibility to
ensure that the social fibre of family life is preserved by desisting from
over-implicating all in-laws and their relations as accused persons in 498-A IPC
reports, and from filing exaggerated reports. They are also to make an endeavour
to bring about amicable settlements to this essentially human problem. It has
also been rightly pointed out in Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India, AIR 2005
SC 3100 (para 18) whilst upholding the vires of section 498-A IPC, that it
should be ensured that complaints are not filed with oblique motives by
unscrupulous litigants so that a “new legal terrorism” is not unleashed, and
that the well-intentioned provision is not misused.

In Kans Raj v State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, it has been held that there is
a tendency in cases of 498-A IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a large number of
in-laws of the victim wife, and not only the husband. In para 5 of the law
report it has been observed: “….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.”

Specifically as a result of the interaction and suggestions which emerged after
a dialogue with the Advocates and officials, this Court requires to formulate
its opinion on the following points:

1.Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory once an aggrieved woman or the
eligible family members as specified under section 198A Cr.P.C approaches the
police station giving information that an offence under section 498A IPC or
allied provisions such as under section � D.P. Act or under section 406
I.P.C have been committed by the husband or other in-laws and their relations.

2.Should the concerned police officers immediately proceed to arrest the husband
and other family members of the husband whenever such an FIR is lodged.

3.Can a distinction be made between the cases where arrest is immediately
necessary and other cases where arrest can be deferred and an attempt be first
made for bringing about mediation between the parties.

4.What is the appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.

5.Should a time frame be laid down for concluding the mediation proceedings.

6.Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district.

7.What is the procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a
cognizable offence under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is disclosed.

8.Is training of mediators desirable and who should conduct the training?

9.Should the offence under Section 498A be made compoundable and what steps the State Government may take in this direction.

Discussions on the points requiring formulation by the Court.

1. Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory?

Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that when any information
regarding information of a cognizable offence is given orally to the officer in
charge of the Police Station, he is required to reduce it in writing and to
enter it into the general diary. The said provision gives no option to the
concerned Police Officer to refuse to lodge the F.I.R. once information of a
cognizable offence is given to the police officer.

In paragraph No. 30 and 31 in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Cri. L.J. 527, it has been laid down that section 154 (1) of the Code provides
that whenever an information is given that a cognizable offence has been
committed, the Police Officer cannot embark upon an inquiry to ascertain as to
whether the information was reliable or genuine or refuse to register the case
on that ground. The officer in charge of the Police Station is statutorily
obliged to register the case and then to proceed with the investigation, if he
even has reason to suspect the commission of an offence.

(2) Whether arrest of husband and family members mandatory once FIR is lodged
It is noteworthy that section 154 Cr.P.C. which deals with the powers of
investigation and the necessity of lodging an FIR when a cognizable offence only
speaks of “information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence” given
to an officer. No pre-condition, as pointed out above, is placed under this
provision for first examining whether the information is credible or genuine. In
contrast section 41(1)((b) Cr.P.C dealing with the powers of the police to
arrest without a warrant from a Magistrate requires the existence of a
“reasonable complaint,” or “credible information” or “reasonable suspicion” of
the accused being involved in a cognizable offence as pre-conditions for
effecting his arrest.

The two provisos to section 157 also speak of two exceptions when investigation
(and consequent arrest) may not be necessary. These two situations are:
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against
any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in
charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate
officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no
sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the
case. However in such situations the police officer is to mention in his report
the reasons for not investigating the case. In the second case, where a police
officer is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for investigating a
matter, he is to also inform the informant of his decision.
The proviso (b) to section 157 (1) Cr. P. C. has been discussed in paragraphs
No. 53 and 54 in Bhajan Lal (supra). The law report clarifies that clause (b) of
the proviso permits a police officer to satisfy himself about the sufficiency of
the grounds even before entering on an investigation. However, at that stage,
the satisfaction that on the allegations, a cognizable offence warranting
investigation is disclosed, has only to be based on the F.I.R. and other
materials appended to it, which are placed before the Police Officer. Therefore,
if it appears to the Police Officer that the matrimonial dispute between the
spouses is either not of a grave nature or is the result of a conflict of egos
or contains an exaggerated version, or where the complainant wife has not
received any injury or has not been medically examined, he may even desist or
defer the investigation in such a case.

Recently by Act No. 5 of 2009, the newly introduced section 41 (1) (b), has been
given effect to from 1.11.2010. This sub-section provides that if some material
or credible information exists of an accused being involved in a cognizable
offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment or less with or without fine, the
Police Officer has only to make an arrest, if he is satisfied that such arrest
is necessary (i) to prevent such person from committing any further offence,
(ii) for proper investigation of the offence; (iii) to prevent such person from
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with the evidence
in any manner; (iv) for preventing such person from making any inducement,
threat or promise to a witness to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or the Police Officer (v) or unless such a person is arrested, he may not
appear in the Court when required. This new provision has forestalled any
routine arrests simply because a person is said to be involved in a cognizable
offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. The arrest is only to be
effected if any or all of the five conditions abovementioned are fulfilled. For
making or for not making such arrest, the Police Officer has to record his
reasons. In contrast to this provision, under section 41 (1) (ba) such a
limitation has not been provided for those cases, where credible information has
been received that a person has committed an offence punishable with
imprisonment of over 7 years.

A new provision, section 41 A Cr.P.C has also been added by Act No. 5 of 2009
(with effect from 1.11.2010) which gives powers to a Police Officer to issue a
notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complainant has been made
or credible information or reasonable suspicion exists to appear before him or
at any place that he may specify in the notice where the police officer is of
the opinion that the arrest is not required under the provisions of section
41(1) Cr.P.C. but the accused is to comply with the notice and he would not be
arrested, if he continues to comply with the terms of the notice. However, where
the person fails to comply with the notice, the police has all powers to arrest
him, unless there is some order of the Court granting him bail or staying his
arrest.

Now an offence under section 498A IPC is punishable with imprisonment only up to
three years and fine. If there are no injuries on a victim, in our opinion, it
constitutes a fit case for the police officer to exercise powers conferred by
the newly introduced section 41(1)(b) read with section 41 (A), where instead of
straight away arresting the accused, it would be a better option at the initial
stage for the police officer to require the said person to appear before him or
before the Mediation Centre. As pointed out above section 41 A Cr.P.C. permits
calling the person concerned before the police officer himself or to any
specified place. Hence a notice can be given to the accused to appear before the
mediation centre. This restraint on arrest, and placing of conditions or terms
for arrest would also apply a fortiori to the accused family members of the
husband of the aggrieved wife.

It may be pointed out that if the FIR is immediately registered that will
placate the concerns of the aggrieved wife to some extent that action is being
taken on her complaint, and it has not been put on the back burner.

(3) Whether distinction possible between cases necessitating immediate arrest,
and cases where attempt for mediation should first be made

Arrest may be necessitated, if the husband or other in-laws have given a grave
beating to the wife endangering her life or where the wife has been subjected to
repeated violence or there are any other circumstances of exceptional cruelty
against the wife, where future recurrence of violence or cruelty seems likely,
or for preventing the husband and his accused family members from trying to
browbeat witnesses or to tamper with the course of justice, or for ensuring the
presence of the husband or his accused family members at the trial, or for
effective investigation. In all other cases, we are of the opinion that an
attempt should be first made for bringing about reconciliation between the
parties by directing the complainant wife and her natal family members and the
husband and other family members to appear before the Mediation Centre when the
wife or other eligible relations under section 198-A Cr.P.C. approaches the
police station for lodging the report.

The advantage of not immediately arresting the accused husband and his family
members in a trivial case where there appear to be no injuries on the aggrieved
wife, is that in sudden matrimonial disputes, because of clash of egos between
the wife and her natal family members and the husband and in-laws, the wife’s
side at the initial stage usually insists on effecting the arrests of the
husband and other in-laws. Once the husband or his family members are arrested,
and subsequently bailed out, little motivation remains for the parties to try
and resolve their disputes by mediation. This may prove disadvantageous for the
wife in the long run who may not have a source of independent livelihood for
running her life in the future.

4.Appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.
The officials as well as the learned Government Advocate and other lawyers
present unanimously recommended that the Mediation Cell should not be at the
police station. The I.G. (Public Grievances) pointed out that the police officer
before whom the report is lodged lack proper training for conducting mediations
sessions. Also if the police officer refrains from arresting the accused persons
pursuant to the wife’s FIR, by attempting to mediate in the dispute between the
parties, even if it is a case of no injury, and even where he is only acting in
accordance with the general directions of the Court, questions about his
integrity are unnecessarily raised.

Moreover it is pointed out by the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority that
now Mediation or Conciliation Centres have been established in all the District
Courts. We, therefore, think that the mediation proceedings should be carried
out in the said Mediation Centre.

5.Need for time frame for concluding the mediation proceedings.

The I.G. (Public Grievances) and others present rightly pointed out that a time
frame must be laid down for concluding the mediation proceedings as when an
aggrieved wife approaches the police for relief, because she has been subjected
to cruelty. If the matter is unduly prolonged in the mediation process, the
delay could act as a shield to protect the accused from facing the penalty of
law, causing frustration and bitterness for the aggrieved wife. Notice should as
far as possible be served personally on the accused and the parties should be
directed to appear before the Mediation Centre within a week or 10 days of the
lodging of the report by the aggrieved wife or family members. Thereafter we
think, that as far as possible, the mediation proceedings should be concluded
within two months of the first appearance of both the parties before the
Mediation Centre.

6.Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district?

The Mediation Cell in the district should be headed by the Secretary of the
Legal Services Authority in the district, (at present, the Civil Judge, Senior
Division has been made the Secretary), other panel or retainer lawyers appointed
by the District Legal Services Authority, other lawyers, who volunteer for
giving free services before the Mediation centre, especially female lawyers
should also be made members of the Mediation Cell. It is also desirable to have
three or four social workers (especially female) in the Cell. A female police
officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. may also be appointed an ex-officio member of
the Mediation Cell.

7.Procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a cognizable offence
under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is reported

The report regarding commission of cognizable offence under section 498A IPC or
other allied sections may be lodged at the concerned police station where the
incident takes place or at the ‘Mahila Thana’ especially created in the district
for investigation of such cases. The police officer concerned will get the
aggrieved woman medically examined for injuries if the same are present. If the
report has been lodged at some police station other than the Mahila Thana, the
injury report and relevant police papers shall be forwarded to the Mahila Thana
for investigation of the case, and in appropriate cases the investigating police
officer at the Mahila Thana may refer the matter to the mediation centre in the
Civil Court, and direct the complainant to be present at the mediation centre on
a fixed date 7 to 10 days thereafter. The accused should as far as possible also
be personally given notice to appear before the mediation centre on the date
fixed. We would also like the presence of trained social workers (especially
female) or legal aid panel lawyers to be present at the Mahila Thana for
counselling the aggrieved woman and her family members for first trying to solve
their dispute by mediation, when the case is registered at the mahila thana. The
notice to the husband and other family members should mention that in cases the
husband or the family members of the aggrieved wife fail to appear on the date
fixed or on future dates, as directed by the Mediation Centre or fail to comply
with any condition that may be imposed by the police officer or Mediation
Centre, steps shall be taken for arresting the accused. The accused husband or
other in-laws should be directed to report before the police officer on a date
two months after the date of first appearance before the Mediation Centre and
inform the Police Officer about the progress in the mediation. The in-charge of
the mediation proceeding may also direct the husband or other family members to
appear before the Police Officer at an earlier date fixed in case mediation has
failed or it has been successfully concluded and the parties concerned shall
appear before the Police Officer on the said date. It would also be open to the
complainant wife to inform the police officer about the progress (or lack of it)
of the mediation process. The notice should also clarify that in case mediation
is pronounced as unsuccessful at an earlier date, and information is given by
either party or the Mediation centre to the Police Officer, he may require the
presence of the accused husband or his relations at an earlier date. If
mediation has been successfully concluded, it will be open to the Police Officer
to submit a final report in the matter. In cases, where it has not been
successfully concluded and the Police Officer is of the view that arrest may not
be necessary in a particular case, he may direct the accused persons to obtain
bail from the Competent Court. In case, he is of the opinion that the arrest is
necessitated at a subsequent stage, it will be open to the Police Officer to
take such accused persons in custody. He should of course record his reason for
making the said arrest as provided under section 41 (1) (b) (ii).

8.Necessity of training to mediators.

We endorse the opinion of the intervening lawyers, the learned Government
Advocate, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organizing Secretary of the Mediation Centre of the
Allahabad High Court and the Government officials present, including the
Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, that training for mediators is a sine
qua non for effective mediation. The Organizing Secretary of the Allahabad High
Court Mediation Centre (AHMC) and Secretary of the U.P. Legal Services Authority
(UPLSA) stated that the centre and authority are prepared to impart training to
the mediators. We welcome this offer and direct that there should be
co-ordianation between the AHMC and UPLSA for giving effect to this offer. By
and by as the State Government is able to create a cadre of trainers for
mediation, their services may also be utilised for training mediators in the
districts.

We think training is necessary because the responses to our queries from the
subordinate district courts reveal the poor success rate in the cases referred
by the High Court or where the concerned subordinate court has itself initiated
the process of mediation. By contrast the success rate at the Mediation Centre
in the Allahabad High Court, which has independent trained mediators (usually
lawyers) is much higher. The first requirement for successful mediation is the
patience on the part of the mediator, and his willingness to give sufficient
time to the contesting parties and especially to the wife to express her bottled
up grievances. Thereafter, in a disinterested manner, the mediator should
encourage the parties to come up with solutions, giving useful suggestions for
bringing about reconciliation, as the mediator cannot impose his solution on the
parties.
The guidelines hereinabove have been spelt out by the Court because of the
specific request of the officials and lawyers present to spell out the terms of
the same, as guidance for the State government (esp. the home department), the
Legal Services Authority and the police for issuing appropriate circulars or
government orders.

(9) Should offences under section 498-A IPC be made compoundable?

We have received considerable feedback from subordinate judicial authorities
that unless the offence under section 498-A IPC is made compoundable, much
benefit cannot be derived by trying to bring about mediation between the
parties. A dilemma then arises before the concerned Court, (which cannot close
the trial because the spouses have compromised their dispute) or even before the
aggrieved wife, if she decides to settle her dispute with her spouse and in-laws
either by agreeing to stay with them or to part amicably, usually after
receiving some compensation. Even if she is no more interested in repeatedly
visiting the court for prosecuting the accused, in the absence of provisions for
compounding the offence, she has willy nilly to perjure by making a false
statement that her initial report was untrue or lodged under influence of X or
Y. If on the basis of this statement the trial Court acquits the husband and his
family members, and the aggrieved wife returns to her matrimonial home, in the
cases where she is again maltreated, if she lodges a fresh report, its
reliability will be open to question.

The Apex Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P., 2010 SCALE 711 observed that an
offence under section 498-A IPC is essentially private in nature, and it should
be made compoundable if the parties are willing to amicably settle their
dispute. Directions were given to the Law Commission of India to consider the
matter and to make appropriate recommendations to the Government to bring about
suitable amendments in the statute.

In Rajeev Verma v. State of U.P., 2004 Cri.L.J. 2956, which was a decision given
by a bench in which one of us (Amar Saran J) was a member, a similar suggestion
was made to the Law Commission of U.P. to recommend to the State government to
make the offence under section 498-A IPC compoundable with the permission of the
Court under section 320 Cr.P.C. The reasons for the suggestion were that such
FIRs are often lodged in the heat of the moment, without reflection after a
sudden quarrel, and sometimes as a result of wrong advice or influences. But the
complaining wife, who usually has no source of independent livelihood (as a key
problem in our society is the lack of economic and social empowerment of women)
and is unable to provide for herself in the future, may have to suffer later if
the relationship with her husband is irrevocably ruptured due to the hasty
filing of the criminal case, particularly in view of the fact that the offence
is non-compoundable. To meet this situation B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana, AIR
2003 SC 1386, Manoj Sharma v State, 2008 SC(Suppl) 1171, and Madan Mohan Abbot v
State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969 recommended quashing of the complaint in
proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C or in the writ jurisdiction where the
aggrieved wife compounded the offence. In the latter case it was observed that
where the dispute is purely personal in nature, (i.e. the element of the offence
being a crime against society is secondary), and the wife decides to compound
the offence, as there would be little likelihood of conviction, quashing of the
offence should not be refused on the hyper-technical view that the offence was
non-compoundable “as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in
favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as
they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding
more effective and meaningful litigation”

The following passage in paragraph 12 in G.V. Rao v L.H.V. Prasad, AIR 2000 SC
2474 has been cited with approval in B.S. Joshi:
“There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The
marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved
with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in
different Courts.”

In Rajeev Verma however relying on B.S. Joshi it was mentioned that whilst the
trial could be quashed in an application under section 482 Cr.P.C or under
Article 226, being a fruitless prosecution where there was little likelihood of
conviction as the parties had settled their dispute, but the proper forum for
deciding the matter whether the compromise application was voluntary and bona
fide or whether it was coerced was the lower court which could decide whether it
was a fit case for granting permission to the wife to compound the offence under
section 320(2) Cr.P.C. This was only possible if the offence under s. 498-A IPC
was made compoundable with the permission of the Court.

A good option for providing recompense to the maltreated woman is “The
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005″ which provides for a gamut
of civil rights for the aggrieved woman who has entered into a domestic
relationship with a man, with or without marriage. Such civil rights include
“Protection orders” (section 18) prohibiting the respondent from committing any
act of violence, visiting the place of work, operating the common bank locker,
making telephonic contact etc. “Residence orders” (section 19), which restrain
the respondent from dispossessing a woman from the shared household, or from
alienating or renouncing his rights to the property or by directing him to
remove himself, or by providing alternate accommodation to the aggrieved woman
at the existing level. By providing “monetary reliefs” (sections 20 and 22) by
paying for loss of earnings or medical expenses, or loss due to destruction of
property by domestic violence, or for maintenance of the woman and her dependent
children, or by payment of compensation for causing injuries (including mental
torture). “Custody orders” (section 21) for custody of the child to the woman
(including visiting rights) for the respondent. Criminal proceedings under this
Act have been allowed only as a last resort, under section 31 when the
respondent commits a breach of a protection order, or where at the stage of
framing charges for breach of the protection order he finds that an offence
under section 498-A IPC has also been committed by the respondent.

The Act also provides under section 14 for the Magistrate to send a matter for
“counselling” before a registered “service provider,” who is qualified to
provide counselling in such matters to the contesting parties or to provide
shelter etc. to the aggrieved woman.

In the counter-affidavit dated 12.8.11 filed on behalf of the Home Secretary,
U.P., it has specifically been mentioned that the State government has given its
consent to the Union of India to make offences under section 498-A IPC
compoundable, and the letter of the Home (Police) Section-9 to the Union Home
Ministry dated 4.2.10 has been annexed. Whereas we appreciate this positive
attitude of the State government in not objecting to section 498-A IPC being
made a compoundable offence. However we find that Andhra Pradesh, by Act 11 of
2003 (w.e.f 1.8.03) has added section 498 A (wrongly described as 494 A) after
section 494 in the table in section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and has permitted the woman
subjected to cruelty to compound the offence with the permission of the Court,
but added a proviso that a minimum period of three months be allowed to elapse
from the date of application for compromise before a Court can accept the
request, provided any of the parties do not withdraw in the intervening period.

The U.P. government may consider bringing out a similar amendment, as it has
already expressed its opinion that the offence under section 498-A IPC be made
compoundable.

Before parting we must clarify that the Court is of the firm view that acts of
cruelty or violence against women have neither ceased, nor have they been
reduced, and the special provision for meeting this problem must be retained in
the statute book. We quote with approval the view expressed in paragraph 11 of
the recent Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper-cum-Questionaire
regarding section 498-A of Indian Penal Code:

“While the Commission is appreciative of the need to discourage unjustified and
frivolous complaints and the scourge of over-implication, it is not inclined to
take a view that dilutes the efficacy of s. 498-A to the extent of defeating its
purpose especially having regard to the fact that atrocities against women are
on the increase. A balanced and holistic view has to be taken on weighing the
pros and cons. There is no doubt a need to address the misuse situations and
arrive at a rational solution ? legislative or otherwise.”

List this case on 8.11.2011 before the regular bench to be headed by one of us
(Hon’ble Amar Saran J)

The State government through the Chief Secretary, U.P., the Principal Secretary,
(Home), U.P., Secretary Law/ L.R. U.P., Director General Police U.P., and
Member-Secretary, U.P. Legal Services Authority may issue appropriate guidelines
or circulars for laying down a system for proceeding in matters where reports
are lodged of commission of offences under section 498 A IPC where immediate
arrests may not be necessary, for laying down the appropriate criteria in this
regard, and for sending the matters for mediation before the mediation cells in
the Civil Courts, in accordance with the aforesaid directions of this Court. The
Principal Secretary, (Finance), U.P. may apprise the Court as to the provision
for finance for appointing social workers/panel lawyers at the Mahila Thanas,
for ensuring that appropriate training is given to the social workers, legal aid
lawyers, and concerned police officers for facilitating the mediation process,
for making available adequate infrastructure/ manpower at the mediation cells in
the Civil Courts, and for meeting expenses on other contingencies. Let the
aforesaid authorities submit their compliance reports within 4 weeks. We would
also like reports from all the Secretaries of the District Legal Services
Authorities to submit their compliance reports (through the District Judges) for
getting the aforementioned minor matters relating to offences under section 498
A IPC settled through mediation and the difficulties they encounter or forsee in
complying with the directions of this Court by the next listing. The State
government is also directed to submit its report on the next listing on the
suggestion of the Court to take steps for making the offence under section 498-A
IPC compoundable with the permission of Court by amending section 320 Cr.P.C in
U.P. as has been done in the case of Andhra Pradesh. Registrar-General is
directed to forward copies of this order within a week to the Chief Secretary,
Principal Secretary, (Home), Law Secretary/LR, U.P., Principal Secretary
(Finance), U.P., D.G.P., U.P., Member-Secretary, U.P., Legal Services Authority,
U.P., Secretaries/ Civil Judges (Senior Division) through District Judges in all
districts in U.P., Sri Ashok Mehta, Organizing Secretary, Allahabad High Court,
Mediation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, and Sister Sheeba Jose, Advocates for the
intervenors, Government Advocate, U.P. and other advocates and officials present
in the hearing on 8.8.11 for information and compliance.

Order Date :- 30.9.2011