XI. RAJESH SHARMA V STATE OF UP Flashcards
(5 cards)
XI. RAJESH SHARMA V STATE OF UP (FACTS)
In the present case, the wife filed a complaint on 2 December 2013 against her husband and his family members. She alleged that her husband and his family had made dowry demands of Rs. 3 lakh and a car. Furthermore, she alleged cruelty and abuse during her pregnancy, ultimately resulting in the termination of her pregnancy. She also stated that her stridhan (personal belongings) had been unlawfully retained by the appellants.
Initially, the trial court summoned only the husband under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt). The other family members were not summoned at this stage. Dissatisfied with this limited summoning, the wife filed a Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, challenging the exclusion of the other family members. The Sessions Court accepted her revision and directed a fresh decision.
Following this, the trial court passed a second order summoning all family members. Aggrieved by this development, the appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed their plea, upholding the summons against all the appellants. Consequently, the appellants moved the Supreme Court, raising the issue of misuse of section 498-A
XI. RAJESH SHARMA V STATE OF UP (a. Arguments by Appellants (Husband and Family)
The appellants contended that the allegations made by the complainant were vague and omnibus. They argued that no specific acts of cruelty or harassment were attributed individually to each family member. It was submitted that in most cases, only the husband or at best his parents are involved in dowry-related issues, not siblings or other distant relatives.
They further emphasised the misuse of Section 498A, claiming that it was often abused as a tool to settle matrimonial scores rather than address genuine grievances. As a result, innocent family members were dragged into criminal litigation unnecessarily, leading to harassment and humiliation.
The background of the family members was also highlighted: the father was a retired government officer, the mother was a housewife, and the siblings were unmarried and allegedly unconnected with the marital dispute. Therefore, it was argued, their summoning was unwarranted and amounted to abuse of the legal process.
XI. RAJESH SHARMA V STATE OF UP (b. Arguments by Respondent (Wife)
The wife, on the other hand, supported the trial court’s decision to summon all the accused. She maintained that the cruelty and dowry harassment she faced was a joint effort by her husband and his family. According to her, it was not limited to her husband alone but involved active participation of other family members, thereby justifying the summons issued against them.
XI. RAJESH SHARMA V STATE OF UP (c. Arguments by Amicus Curiae (Assisting the Court)
The Court appointed Senior Counsel and the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to assist as amicus curiae. They acknowledged that while Section 498A was enacted to protect women, there was growing misuse of the provision. They cited National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, which reflected a high number of arrests but a very low conviction rate (around 14–15%).
This indicated a trend where cases were filed impulsively or maliciously, often without substantial evidence, leading to harassment of innocent persons. Referring to prior judicial precedents such as Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, they stressed the need for safeguards to prevent abuse while preserving the original intent of protecting genuine victims of dowry harassment.
XI. RAJESH SHARMA V STATE OF UP (d. Judgement)
The Supreme Court acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A IPC and issued a series of guidelines to prevent harassment of innocent family members. It directed the formation of Family Welfare Committees in every district to scrutinise complaints before arrests, mandated special training for Investigating Officers, encouraged early disposal of cases on settlement, and ordered that arrests should generally not be made until the Committee’s report is received. However, these safeguards would not apply in cases involving serious physical injuries or death. The Court emphasised balancing the protection of genuine victims with preventing misuse of the law.
The guidelines issued by the court in the judgement:
- Formation of Family Welfare Committees: The Court directed that in every district, one or more Family Welfare Committees must be formed under the supervision of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). Each committee should consist of three members, who may be para-legal volunteers, social workers, retired persons, wives of working officers, or other suitable and willing citizens. The functioning of these committees must be reviewed annually by the District and Sessions Judge, who is also the Chairman of the DLSA. Importantly, committee members cannot be summoned as witnesses in any proceedings arising from the complaint they review. Every complaint under Section 498A IPC must be referred to the Family Welfare Committee before any action is taken. The committees are required to interact with the parties either in person, by telephone, or through electronic communication methods. A brief report summarising the facts and providing an opinion must be submitted within one month of receiving the complaint. Until the committee submits its report, no arrests should generally be made. The Police or Magistrate must consider the committee’s opinion before proceeding. Additionally, committee members should be given basic training and may be paid an honorarium from the cost fund as determined appropriate.
- Designated Investigating Officers: The Court directed that only designated Investigating Officers should handle investigations of complaints under Section 498A IPC. Such officers must be appointed within one month of the judgment and are required to complete mandatory training of at least one week within four months. This step aims to ensure that investigations are carried out professionally and sensitively.
- Facilitating Closure of Cases Upon Settlement: If the parties reach a settlement during the proceedings, the Court empowered the District and Sessions Judge or a senior judicial officer nominated by him to dispose of the criminal proceedings, including quashing the case if the dispute primarily relates to matrimonial issues. This was intended to reduce unnecessary litigation and promote amicable resolutions.
- Quick Decision on Bail Applications: The Court emphasised that if an accused files a bail application giving at least one day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor and the complainant, the bail application should be decided promptly, preferably on the same day. Additionally, recovery of dowry items alone should not automatically justify denial of bail, as long as maintenance or other legal rights of the wife and minor children are otherwise protected. While deciding bail, courts must carefully consider:
- The individual roles of the accused,
- The prima facie truth of allegations,
- The need for further custody or arrest,
- And the overall interest of justice.
- Protection for Persons Residing Abroad: The Court directed that in cases where accused persons are ordinarily residing outside India, measures like impounding passports or issuing a Red Corner Notice must not be done routinely. Such actions should be carefully considered and only taken when absolutely necessary to avoid undue hardship to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).
- Clubbing of Matrimonial Cases: The Court allowed that the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer may club all related matrimonial disputes pending between the same parties. This approach would enable a holistic consideration of the entire dispute rather than fragmented litigation across multiple courts.
- Relaxation of Personal Appearance: Recognising the inconvenience caused to parties, especially those living outside the jurisdiction, the Court directed that the personal appearance of all family members, particularly outstation persons, may be exempted. Wherever appropriate, courts should permit appearance by video conferencing to ensure that the trial progresses smoothly without causing unnecessary hardship.
- Exclusion for Serious Physical Injuries or Death: The Court clarified that these protective directions would not apply in cases where the allegations involve tangible physical injuries or death. In such serious matters, normal criminal law procedures would continue without the safeguards outlined above.
