Decided on: 27 July, 2017
Citations: 2017 SCC 821
Case No. Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2017
Case Type: Review petition
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K Goel and Mr. Justice U.U Lalit.
Petitioner: Rajesh Sharma & Ors.
Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Statutes Referred- Section 498A and Section 323 of Indian Penal Code ,1980, Section of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 41A of CrPc.
Cases Referred- Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India AIR,2005 SC 3100, Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand 13 August, 2010, Ramgopal vs State of Madhya Pradesh 16 August, 2019, Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand 19 July, 2005
Facts:
Rajesh Sharma and Sneha Sharma got married on 28th November 2012.The father of Sneha has given dowry to his fullest capacity but the appellants were not happy with it.
They began abusing or beating the complainant and made demand for dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a car.
The appellant left the complainant at her home since her pregnancy was terminated. On that appellant were summoned under the Section 498A and Section 323 of IPC.
The wife filed a case against the appellant and their relatives. She alleged that her husband made a demand for the dowry as she was pregnant, she also alleged that she was harassed by her husband and their family members which resulted in the termination of the pregnancy.
The appellants approached the High Court for getting the summons quashed but the same was dismissed by the court. Therefore, the appellants filed the appeal in Supreme Court against the order of High Court.
However, the appellants had no interest in making demand for dowry.
Issue involved
1.Whether there is a requirement to check the tendency to rope in all members of the family to settle a matrimonial dispute?
2.Whether there is misuse of Section 498A, IPC or not?
Contentions by the parties:
Petitioner’s
- Main contention raised in support of this appeal is that there is need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute. 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.
- Appellant stated that respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial home.
- Appellant No.2, the father of the Appellant No.1, is a retired government employee. Appellant No.3 is a house wife. Appellant No.4 is unmarried brother and appellant No.5 is unmarried sister who is a government employee. Hence, Appellants 2 to 5 had no interest in making any demand of dowry. The appellants 2 to 5 had no interest in making any demand of dowry.
Respondent’s
- Respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and the averments in the complaint.
- Appellant and his family members were greedy for dowry as they made demand for dowry since she was pregnant which was resulted in cruelty.
- Respondent was harassed by her husband and their family members which resulted in the termination of the pregnancy.
Judgement
It was held in this case that to prevent the innocent person i.e., husband and their relatives from being harassed, court had directed the setting up of “Family Welfare Committee” for dealing with the Section 498A of IPC according to which no one will be arrested until the committee gives the justice to the complainant.
“The main purpose of the committee is to screen the honest cases from fraud ones. To grant relief to the victims of malicious complaints. The accused who is not in the jurisdiction cannot be exempted from making personal appearances in the court and the attendance can be done by the means of video conferencing.”
Ratio Decedendi
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the provision of Section 498A of IPC are grossly misused. In the present case the Supreme Court has given the direction of the offences which is related to the offence of dowry and provided in this judgement that the harassment or victimization of the husband and the married man could be stopped. Further, the objective of this committee is to provide to retore the human right of the innocent people.
“The husband and his family members may have differences of opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand are not the answer. The ultimate object of every legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.”
Analysis
According to my personal analysis that Supreme Court had taken the appropriate decision to save the victims by forming a committee. The ultimate object of the legal system is to protect the innocents and punish the guilty.