Holding

The Court held that to prevent the abuse of Section 498A, comprehensive procedural directions—including the creation of Family Welfare Committees, designated investigating officers, and safeguards against uncalled‑for arrests—must be implemented, and that oppressive non‑compoundable proceedings may be quashed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal challenging the summoning of the husband’s relatives under Section 498A of the IPC in a dowry‑harassment case. It observed that a large number of 498A cases are filed in the heat of the moment, often without bona‑fide evidence, leading to uncalled‑for arrests and hardship to innocent family members. Recognising the abuse of the provision, the Court held that procedural safeguards and systemic reforms are necessary to prevent misuse. It directed the establishment of Family Welfare Committees in each district, the appointment of designated investigating officers, and specific guidelines for arrest, bail, and settlement closure. The Court also affirmed its power to quash non‑compoundable proceedings if they become oppressive, and mandated a review report by the National Legal Services Authority after six months.

Issues considered

Whether directions are required to curb the misuse of Section 498A IPC.
Whether the summoning of relatives without sufficient material under Section 498A is permissible.
Whether the Court can quash non‑compoundable proceedings on the ground of oppression.
Whether procedural safeguards such as designated investigating officers and family welfare committees can mitigate abuse of the provision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 41, s. 41A, s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 41, s. 41A, s. 498A
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005s. 14

Subjects

Section 498A IPCDowry harassmentMisuse of lawFamily Welfare CommitteeCriminal ProcedureArrest safeguardsSettlement closureNon‑compoundable offence

Judgment

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 529

RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Crimina!Appeal No. 1265 of2017)
JULY27,2017 B
IADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.I
Penal Code, 1860:

s. 498A - Abuse of- Remedy - Held: Object of s.498A was to
punish the crnelty at the handy of husband and his relatives - Large c
number of cases are .filed under !his section - Bui most of such
complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues -
Many of such complaints are not bona fide - Uncalled far arrest
pursuant thereto may ruin the chances .of settlement - The matter
has been considered by Law Commission, Malimath Committee, The D
Committee of Petitions in Rajya Sabha and the Home Minist1y -
The abuse of the provision was noticed by Supreme Court in many
judgments - Many High Courts issued directions to check such
abuse - Uncalled for implication of husband and his relatives and
their arrest and continuation of proceedings in spite of settlement
between parties, require remedictl steps ~ To remedy the situation, E
Investigating Officers and trial courts should be sensitized, civil
. society should also be involved in the aido.f administration ofjustice
and in case of genuine settlement, closure of the proceedings should
be facilitated - Directions issued in this respect - Direction lo
National Legal Services Authority to give a report, after seeing the F
working .of arrangement as per the above directions.

Issuing directions, the Court

HELD: 1. Section 498A IPC was inserted in the statute
· with the laudable object of punishing crue.lty at the hands of G
. husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such
cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as
. mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons _of the Ac~
46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers
conduct which may drive the women to,.commit suicide or cause
H
529
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment
with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Para 141.
1539-E-Ii'J

2. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of
cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment
B of married women. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that
most of such complaints are flied in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the
time of filing of the complaint, implication~ and conse<1uences
are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for
c harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant.
Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. This Court
had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision was
warranted. The matter also appears to have been considered by
the Law Commission, the Malimath Committee, the Committee
on Petitions in the Rajya Sabha, the Home Ministry. The abuse
D of the provision was also noted in the judgments of this Court.
Some High Courts have issued directions to ched; such abuse.
Recommendation has also been made by the Law Commission
to make the offence compoundable. (Para 141 (539-F-H; 540-A-
Cf
E
3. Following areas appear to require remedial steps: i)
Uncalled for implication of husband and his relatives and arrest;
ii) Continuation of proceedings in spite of settlement between
the parties since the offence is non-compoundable and uncalled
for hardship to parties on that account. !Para 151 (540-C-D(
F
4. Function of this Court is not to legislate but only to
interpret the law. No doubt in doing so laying down of norms is
sometimes unavoidable. Just and fair procedure being part of
fundamental right to life, interpretation is required to be placed
G on a penal provision so that its working is not unjust, unfair or
unreasonable. The court has in~idental power to quash even a
non~cQmpoundable 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
H quashing is exercised. [Para 161 [540-D-FI

"'-
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 531

5. To remedy the situation, involvement of civil society in A
the aid of administration of justice caii be one of the steps, apart
from the investigating officers and the concerned trial courts. being
sensitized. It is also necessary to facilitate closure of proceedings
where a genuine settlement has been reached instead of parties
being required to move High Court only for that purpose. The B
Court issues directions in this respect. [Paras 18 and 191 [541-
C-DJ
6. After seeing the working of the arrangement as per the
directions, for six months, but latest by March 31, 2018, National
Legal Services Authority may give a report about need for any
change in above directions or for any further directions. [Para c
201 1543-CI
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v.
Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC
603 : (2012J 12 SCR 256; SCBA v. Union ofIndia (1998)
4 SCC 409 : 11998) 2 SCR 795; Union of India v. D
Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. (1989) 2 SCC 754 : (1989)
3 SCR 316; Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC
333 : (2011) 15. SCR 1092; State of Punjab v. Dalbir.
Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346 : 120121 4 SCR 608; Hema ..
Mishra vs.. Staet of U.P. and Ors. [2014) l SCR 465 :
2014 (4) SCC 453; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) E
10 SCC 303 : (2012] 8 SCR 753; CBI ACB Mumbai vs
Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. [2014( 3 SCR 444 : 2014 (5)
sec 364 - relied on.
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC
281: (200511 Suppl. SCR 730; Preeti Gupta v. State of F
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667: [20101 9 SCR 1168;
Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 13 SCC
540 : [2010) 9 SCR 354; Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand
ILR (2003) I Delhi 484; Chander Bhan v. State (2008)
151 DLT 691; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
G
8 SCC 273 : 120141 8 SCR 128; Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (20131
14 SCE. 713 - referred to.
243'"'1 Law Commission Report (August, 2012), 140'h
Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petition
(.September, 20Il) - referred· to. H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference

[20051 1 Suppl. SCR 730 referred to Paras
(20101 9 SCR 116S referred to Paras
B
[20101 9 SCR 354 referred to Paras
ILR (2003) I Delhi 4S4 referred to Paras
(200S) 151 DLT 691 referred to Para 9
C [20141 S SCR12S referred to Para 10
[20131 14 SCR 713 referred to Para 11
[20121 12 SCR 256 relied on Para 16
(199SI 2 SCR 795 relied on Para 16
D [19S91 3 SCR 316 relied on Para 16
[20111 15 SCR 1092 relied on Para 16
120121 4 SCR 608 relied on Para 16
[20141 1 SCR 465 relied on Para 16
E
120121 S SCR 753 relied on Para 16
[20141 3 SCR 444 relied on Para 16

F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1265 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 397 of
2016.
G Atmaram S. Nadkami, ASG, V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (AC), Ms. Uttara
Babbar, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Svadha Shanker, Mahesh Srivastava,
Pankaj Srivastava, P. N. Puri, P. K. Dey, S. A. Haseeb, Santosh Rebello,
Ms. Sneha Prabhu T., Ms. Nivedita, Ajith Yadav, 8. K: Prasad, Vaibhav
Manu Srivastava, Shringarika Priyadarshini, Advs. for the appearing
H parties.
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 533

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The question which has arisen in this appeal i~ whether any
directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, as
acknowledged in certain studies and decisions. The Court requested
ShriA.S. Nadkami, leamedASG and Shri V.V. Giri, learned senior counsel · B
to assist the Court as amicus. We place on record our gratitude for the
assistance rendered by learned ASG Shri Nadkarni and learned senior
counsel Shri Giri who in turn was ably assisted by advocates Ms. Uttara
Babbar, Ms. Pragya Baghel and Ms. Svadha Shimker.
3. Proceedings have arisen from complaint dated 2"" December, c
2013 filed by respondentNo.2 wife of appellant No. I. Appellants 2 to 5
are the patents and siblings of appellant No.1. The complainant alleged
that she was married to appellant No. I on 28"' November, 2012. Her
father gave dowry as per his capacity but the appellants were not happy
with the extent of the dowry. They started abusing the complainant. D
They made a demand of dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and a car which the
family could not arrange. On 1011' November, 2013, appellant No.1
dropped the complainant at her matrimonial home. She was pregnant
· and suffered pain in the process and her pregnancy was terniinated. On
the said version, and further version that her stridhan was retained,
appellant No. l was summoned under. Section 498A and Section 323 E
IPC. Appellants 2 to 5 were not summoned. Order dated 14'h July,
2014 read as follows:
"After perusal of the file and the document brought on record.
It is clear that the husband Shri Rajesh Sharma demanded
car and three lacs rupees and in not meeting the demand. It F
appears that he has tortured the complainant. So far as torture
and retaining of the stri dhan and demanding 50,000 and a
gold chain and in not meeting the demand the torture is
C1ttributable against Shri Rajesh Sharma, Rajesh Sharma
appears to be main accused. In the circumstances, rest of the . G
accused Vijay Sharma. Ja;:wati Sharma, Praveen Sharma and
Priyanka Sharma have not committed any crime and they have
not participated in commission of t1ie crime. ·whereas, it
appears that. Rajesh Sharma has committed an o.ffence under
Section 498A. 323 !PC and read with section 3 I 4 DP act
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A appears to have prima .fi1cie made out. Therefore, a summon
be issued against him. "
4. Against the above order, respondent No.2 preferred a revision
petition and submitted that appellants 2 to 5 should also have been
summoned. The said petition was accepted by the Additional Sessions
B Judge, Jaunpur vide order dated 3n1 July, 2015. The trial'court was
directed to take a fresh decision in the matter. Thereafter, the trial court
vide order dated 18'h August, 2015 summoned appellants 2 to 5 also.
The appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
against the order of summoning. Though the matter was referred to the
mediation centre, the mediation failed. Thereafter, the High Court found
C no ground to interfere with the order of summoning and dismissed the
petition. Hence this appeal.
5. 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
D 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 cmelty. To check abuse of over implication,
clear supporting material is needed to proceed against other relatives of
a husband. It is stated that respondent No.2 her~elf left the matrimonial
E home. Appellant No.2, father ofappellant No. l, 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. Appellants 2 to 5 had no interest in making any demand of
dowry.
F 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned
order and the ave1ments in the complaint.
7. Learned ASG submitted that Section 498A was enacted to
check unconscionable demands by greedy husbands and their families
which at times result in cmelty to women and also suicides. He, however,
G accepted that there is a growing tendency to abuse the said provision to
rope in all the relatives including parents ofadvanced 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 injmy. At times, this results in harassment
and even arrest of innocent family members, including women and senior
H
RAJESH SHARMA' & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. &ANR. 535
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

citizens, This may 1hamper any possible reconciliation and reunion of a A
couple. Reference has been made to the statistics from the Crime
Records Bureau (CRB) as follows:
"9. That according to Reports of National Crime Reco'r:d
Bureau in 2005, j{Jr a total 58, 319 casc.1· reported under
Section 498A lPC, a total of 1,27.560 people were arrested, B
and 6.141 cases were declared false on account of mistake
of fact or law. While in 2009 (or a total 89.546 cases
reported. a total of I. 74;395 people were arrested and 8.352
. cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or .
law.
C,
j 0. That according to Report of Crime in India, 2012 Statistics,
.. National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home ~/fairs
showed that for the year of 20I2, a total of I97,762 people
· all across India were arrested under Section 498A, Indian ·
Penal Code. The Report further shows that approximately a
quarter of those arrested were women that is 47,951 of the .D
total were perhaps moiher or sisters of the husband. However
most swprisingly the rate of charge-sheet filing for the year
2012, under Section 498A !PC was at an exponential height
of 93. 6% while the conviction rate was at a staggering low at
14. 4% only. The Report stated that as many as 3, 72, 706 cases . · E
were pending trial of Which 3, 17, 000 were projected to be
acquitted.
11. That according to Report ofCrime in India, 20 I 3, the .
National Crime Records Bureau further pointed out that of
4,66,079 cases that were pending in the startof 20I3, only F
.J,258 were convicted while 38,I65 were acquitted and 8,218
were withdrawn. Tl1e conviction rate of cases regisfered urider
Section 498A JPC was also a staggering low at. 15.6%. '·'
8. Referring to Sushi{ Kumar Sharma versus Unio11 ofll1dia 1,

)
/
Preeti Gupta versus State of JharkltantP, Ramgopal versus State .of G .
Madhya Pradesh 3, Savitri Devi versus Ramesh Clrand4, it was

1
(2005) 6 sec 281
\ ' (201 op sec 667

)
3 (2010) l3SCC 540
4
!LR (2003) I. Delhi 484 H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged and
there is need to adopt measures to prevent such misuse. The Madras
High Court in M.P. No.I of2008 in Cr. 0.P. No.1089 of2008 dated 4'h
August, 2008 directed issuance of following guidelines:
"It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the
B enactment of Section 498-A !PC and the Dowry Prohibition
Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the
same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction.
Our experience shows that, apart ji·om 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 simp(v to sati.~(v
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. !f the
Magistrates themselves accede to the bare requests of the
D police without examining the actual state of affairs, ii would
create negative effects thereby, the very purpose of the
legislation would be defeated and the doors of conciliation
would be closed forever. The husband and his family members
may have difference of opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest
and judicial remand are not the answers. The ultimate object
E of every legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the
innocents. "
9. Delhi High Court vide order dated 4'h August, 2008 in Ch"nder
Bhan versus State! in Bail Application No.1627/2008 directed issuance
of following guidelines :
F "2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order No.3301
2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the dowry
cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 !PC and the said
G guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly a11d
scrupulously.
(i) No case under Section 498-A/406 /PC should be registered
without the prior approval of DCP/Addl.DCP.
'(2008) 151 DLT 691
H
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 537
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, .1.]

(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough A
investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval
of the ACP/DCP
(iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-lav.-;
mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-.in-/a;v etc. should onZv
be made after prior approval of DCP on file. B
(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well
behaved staff in all the crime· against women cells especially
the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of
perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine
c
manne1:
(d) The endavour of the Police should be to scrutinize
complaints ve1y care.fully and then register FIR .
. (e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons D
against whom there are strong allegations of causing any kind
of physical or mental cruelty as well as breach ·of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be mcide, before recommending
registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and in case itis
.found that there is no possibility of settlement,· then necessmy E
steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return ofstridhan ·
and dowry. articles etc. by the accused party to th.e /

complainant. "
l 0. In Arnesh Kmf!ar versus State ofBilrar6, this Court directed
-~~: F
"11.J All the State Governments to instruct its police officers
not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A
of the IPC is registered but to satisfy them,i·elves about the
\. necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above

t
' '
.flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list
G

containing specified sub-clauses under Section 4/(J)(b)(ii):

\ "(2014) s sec 213
H
'
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Jl.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly
filed and fi1rnish the reasons and materials which necessitated
the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before
the Magistrate for fi1rther detention:
Ji .4 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the
B accused shall peruse the report fi1rnished by the police ojjicer
in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction,
the Magistrate will authorize detention:
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to
the Magistrate within two week.~ from t/ze date of the institllfion
of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be
c extended by the Superintendent of police of the district/or
the reasons to be recorded in wl·iting;
11 .6 Ngtice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC
be seri ed on the accused within two weeks from the dale of
1

institution of the case, which may be extended by the
D
Superintendent of Police 4 the District for the reasons to be
recorded in writing:
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions q/oresaid :;hall
apart ji·om rendering the police ojjlcers concerned liable for
departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished
E for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having
territorial jurisdiction.
il.8 Authorising detention without recording reasons as
aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable
.for departmental action by the appropriate High Court."
F 11. LeamedASG suggested that there must be some preliminaiy
inquiry on the lines ofobservations inLa/itaK11mari versus Government
of Uttar Prades/1 7. Arrest of a relative .other than husband could only
be after pennission from the concerned Magistrate. There should be no
arrest of relatives aged above 70 years, Power of the.police to straight
G away arrest must be prohibited. 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
1
(20I4J 2 sec 1
H
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 539
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.)

affidavit. The copy of the preliminary enquiry report should be furnished A
to the accused.
12. Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel assisted by advocates Ms.
Uttara Babbar, Ms. Pragya Baghel and Ms. Svadha Shanker submitted
that arrest in an offence under Section 498A should be only after recording
reasons and express approval from t.he Superintendent of Police. B
In respect of relatives who are ordinarily residing outside India, the matter
· should proceed only if,the IO is convinced that arrest is necessary for
fair investigation. ,Jn sbch cases .impouriding of passport or issuance of
red comer notice.should be avoided. Proc,>edure u~<:\er Section 14 of the
Protection of Won1en from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, of counseling
should be mad~ i;ri'andatory before registration of a case under Section C
~~. I .
13. We have given serious consideration to the rival submissions
as well as suggestions made by learned ASG and Shri V. Giri, Senior
Advocate assisted by Advocates Ms. Uttara Bab bar, Ms. Pragya Baghel
and Ms. Svadha Shanker. We have also perused 243'd Law Commission D
Report (August, 2012), 140'h Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on
Petition (September, 2011) as well as several decisions to which our
attention has been invited.
14. Section 498A was inserted in the statl\te with the laudable
object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against E
. a wife pai1icularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or
murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression '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 F
with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. 8 It is a matter of
serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under
Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have already
referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This
Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed ·
in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints G
are not bona fide. At the time offilip.g of the complaint, implications and
consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to
uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the

'Explanation to Section 498A
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.
This Court had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision
was warranted9 • The matter also appears to have been considered by
the Law Commission, the Malimath Committee, tbe Committee on
Petitions in the Rajya Sabha, the Home Ministry, which have been referred
to in the earlier part of the Judgment. The abuse of the provision was
B
also noted in the judgments of this Court referred to earlier. Some High
Courts have issued directions to check such abuse. In Arnesh Kumar
(supra) this Court gave directions to safeguard uncalled for arrests.
Reconm1endation has also been made by the Law Commission to make
the offence compoundable.
c 15. Following areas appear to require remedial steps:-
i) Uncalled for implication of husband and his relatives and
arrest.
ii) Continuation of proceedings in spite of settlement between
the parties .since the offence is non-compoundable and
D uncalled for hardship to parties on that account. '
16. Function of this Court is not to legislate but only to interpret
the law. No doubt in doing so laying down of norms is sometimes
unavoidable. to Just and fair procedure being part of fundamental right
to life, 11 interpretation is required to be placed on a penal provision so
E that its working is not unjust, unfair or tmreasonablc. The court has
incidental power to quas]l. even a non-compoundable case of private
nature, if continuing the. proceedings is fmmd to be oppressive. 12 Whilt;
stifling a legitimate prosecution is against public policy, if the proceedings
in an offence of private nature are found to be oppressive, power of
F quashing is exercised.
17. We have considered the background of the issue and also
taken into account the 243'd Report of the Law Commission dated
9
Precti Gupta (supra)
'"Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exdrnngc Board of
G india (20 I2) IO SCC 603- para 52, SCBA v. Union of India (I 99&) 4 sec 409- para 47.
Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. ( 1989) 2 sec 754- para 7. Dayaram vs.
Sudhir Batham (2012) I sec 333
I' State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346- para 46,52 & 85, (2014) 4 sec
453- para-2 I
"Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (20I 2) IO SCC 303- para-6I, (20 I4) 5 SCC 364-para
-I4
H
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P, & ANR. 541
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

30'11 August, 2012, 140° Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on A
1

Petiti.ons (September, 2011) and. earlier decisions of this Court.. We are
conscious of the object for which the provision was brought into the
statute. At the same time, violation of human rights of innocent cannot
be brushed aside. Certain safeguards against uncalled for arrest or
insensitive investigation have been addressed by this Court. Still, the B
problem continues to a great extent.
18. To remedy the situation, we are ~fthe view that involvement
of civil society in the aid of administration ofjustice can be one of the
steps, apart from the investigating officers and the concerned trial courts
being sensitized. It is also necessa1y to facilitate c!.osure of proceedings C
where a genuine settlement has been reached instead of parties being
required to move High Court only for that purpose.
19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we
consider it fit to give following directions:-
i) (a)In eyery district one or more.Family Welfare Committees be D
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 Chainnan of the District Legal Services Authority.
E
(b) 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.
(c) The Committee members will not be c.alled as witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Sectiori 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
F
'
i

. or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication
including electronic communication. ·
(e) Report of such committee be given to th~ Authority by whom G
the complaint is refen:ed to it latest within one month from the
date ofreceipt of complaint.
(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual
aspects and its opinion in the matter.
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should
normally be effected.
(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer
or the Magistrate on its own merit.
(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum
B training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services
Authority from time to time.
(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium
as may be considered viable.
(k) lt will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the
c cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.
ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences
may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of
the area. Such designations may be made within one month from
today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training
D for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered
appropriate. The training may be completed within four months
from today;
iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the
District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer
E nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings
including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to
matrimonial discord;
iv} !fa bail application is filed with at least one clear day's notice to
the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as
F 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;
G
v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out oflndia impounding
of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a
routine;
vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial
officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases
H
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 543
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a A
holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are
entrusted; and
vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly
outstation members may not be required and the tri~}_court ought
to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance B
by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of
the trial.
viii) These directions will not apply to the ciffe11ces involving tangible
physical injuries or death. 'J

20. After seeing the working of the above arrangement for six C
months but latest by March 31, 2018, National Legal Services Authority
may give a report about need for any change in above directions or for
any further directions. The matter may be listed for consideration by
the Court in April, 2018.
21. Copies of this order be sent to Natipnal Legal Services .D
Authority, Director General of Police of all the States and the Registrars
of all the High Courts for further appropriate action.
22. It will be open to the parties in the present case to approach
the concerned trial or other comi for further orders in the light of the
above directions. E

Kalpana K. Tripathy DircCtions issued.