RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 27-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 529 
RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Crimina!Appeal No. 1265 of2017) 
A 
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 
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 
c 
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, 
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 
working .of arrangement as per the above directions. 
Issuing directions, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 498A IPC was inserted in the statute 
E 
F 
· 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 
529 
H 
530 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
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 
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. 
E 
F 
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 
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( 
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 
sensi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.