Supreme Court modifies its own 2017 ruling that had ordered constitution of ‘family welfare committees’ to look into veracity of Section 498A (cruelty/dowry) complaints

Published on:

14 Sep 2018, 8:28 am

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] three-judge bench of the Supreme Court — consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices A M Khanwilker and D Y Chandrachud — has on September 14, 2018 partially modified the top court's judgment dated July 27, 2017 in Rajesh Sharma case that was delivered by a two-judge bench composed of Justices A K Goel (Retired) and UU Lalit, wherein constitution of the Family Welfare Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities was directed. The function of the said committee was to verify the complaint received under Section 498A of the IPC with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry, and no arrest/no coercive steps had to be made till the report of the family welfare committee was received. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate was required to consider the said report on its own merit.

The bench led by the CJI while modifying the said direction passed in Rajesh Sharma case held that "…..there is introduction of a third agency which has nothing to do with the Code and that apart, the Committees have been empowered to suggest a report failing which no arrest can be made. The directions to settle a case after it is registered is not a correct expression of law. A criminal proceeding which is not compoundable can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. When settlement takes place, then both the parties can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court, considering the bonafide of the petition, may quash the same. The power rests with the High Court…..".

#498A– A three-judge bench headed by CJI modifies decision of two-judge bench in Rajesh Kumar case. Directions regarding constitution of welfare committee has been withdrawn among other directions.
— The Leaflet (@TheLeaflet_in) September 14, 2018

Judgment in Rajesh Kumar case modified to the extent role of welfare committee NGO etc not required and no scope of constitutional courts to fulfill gaps, enough protection under section 41&41A of crpc, anticipatory bail provisions etc.
— The Leaflet (@TheLeaflet_in) September 14, 2018

The Court has, however, directed that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Supreme Court's judgments in Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Lalita Kumari and Arnesh Kumar. In these judgments the Supreme Court has laid down the law related to the arrest of a person in view of Section 41A of the CrPC.

Court noted that it will also be appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by the Supreme Court relating to arrest

Further, Court noted that it will also be appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by the Supreme Court relating to arrest.

Court also noted that the directions issued by the Court are in the nature of statutory reminder of a constitutional court to the authorities for proper implementation and not to behave like emperors considering the notion that they can do what they please.

The court has said that social welfare committees and NGOs have no role to play in the investigation, and hence directions contained in paragraph 19(i) to the Rajesh Sharma judgment, as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework

Resultantly, the court has said that social welfare committees and NGOs have no role to play in the investigation, and hence directions contained in paragraph 19(i) to the Rajesh Sharma judgment, as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given in today's verdict. The directions in Rajesh Sharma case stand modified accordingly to this effect.

Read the judgment here.

[pdfviewer]https://cdn.theleaflet.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/40984_2014_Judgement_14-Sep-2018.pdf[/pdfviewer]