SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 14-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV
ADHIKAR AND ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW
 AND JUSTICE AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.73 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI,  A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A – Matrimonial disputes –
Directions issued in Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and
Another, [2017] 9 SCR 529 – Modification in – Amicus Curiae
contended that directions issued in the Rajesh Sharma case
pertaining to s.498-A of IPC required reconsideration – Held: 1)
Earlier, the Court had directed constitution of the Family Welfare
Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed
the duties of the Committees – The Committees were empowered to
suggest a report failing which no arrest could be made – Directions
pertaining to constitution of a Committee and conferment of power
on the said Committee is impermissible as power conferred are
beyond the Code of Criminal Procedure – 2) The Court had also
issued direction that in cases where settlement is reached, the District
and Sessions Judges were entrusted with power to dispose of the
proceeding – This direction relating to settlement modified to the
extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach
High Court u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. – 3) The Court had directed that
complaints u/s.498-A and other connected offences may be
investigated only by a designated investigating officer of the area
– This direction has to be read in conjunction with the direction
that Director General of Police of each State is to ensure that
investigating officers are imparted training with regard to the
principles laid down by Supreme Court relating to arrest – 4) Further,
the Court had left it open to the District Judge or a designated
judicial officer to club all connected cases between the parties and
had also exempted family members, particularly outstation members,
from personal appearance – These directions modified to the extent
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 19
  19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
that an application has to be filed either u/s.205 Cr.P.C. or s.317
Cr.P.C. depending upon the stage at which exemption is sought – 5)
Nothing erroneous in the earlier directions relating to bail and
impounding of passports or issuance of Red corner notice – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41, 41-A, 205, 317 and 482.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. The core issue is whether the Court in Rajesh
Sharma could, by the method of interpretation, have issued such
directions. On a perusal of the directions, it is found that the
Court has directed constitution of the Family Welfare Committees
by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed the
duties of the Committees. The prescription of duties of the
Committees and further action therefor, are beyond the Code
and the same does not really flow from any provision of the Code.
There can be no denial that there has to be just, fair and
reasonable working of a provision. The legislature in its wisdom
has made the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code,
1860 cognizable and non-bailable. The fault lies with the
investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without
application of mind. The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar are
in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 CrPC
and Section 41-A CrPC. Similarly, the guidelines stated in Joginder
Kumar and  D.K. Basu  are within the framework of the Code and
the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical
system of the investigating agency. The purpose has been to see
that the investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest
people at its whim and fancy. [Para 33] [46-A-D]
2.  In  Rajesh Sharma, 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 compundable 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.
[Para 34][46-E-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
3. The directions pertaining to constitution of a
Committee and conferment of power on 

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