Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Report 243
Report 243
LAW
COMMISSION
OF
INDIA
Report No.243
AUGUST 2012
ii
Section 498A IPC
INDEX
iii
Section 498A IPC
1. Introduction
1.1 Keeping in view the representations received from various quarters and
observations made by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Home
Secretary, Government of India through his D.O. letter dated 1st September,
the alleged misuse of the said provision. Thereafter, in the case of Preeti Gupta
vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) the Supreme Court observed that “serious re-
in a very large number of cases”. Copy of the Judgment has been directed to
be sent to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary for taking appropriate
Annexure-I.
1.2 S.498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from
extending to 3 years and fine has been prescribed. The expression ‘cruelty’ has
to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of harassment with a
view to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand for any
1
property or valuable security. Harassment for dowry falls within the sweep of
latter limb of the section. Creating a situation driving the woman to commit
suicide is also one of the ingredients of ‘cruelty’. The offence under s.498A is
below:
1.3 Several enactments and provisions have been brought on the statute
book during the last two or three decades to address the concerns of liberty,
dignity and equal respect for women founded on the community perception
several social and cultural factors. Meaningful debates and persuasions have
led to these enactments. The insertion of Section 498A IPC is one such move
and it penalizes offensive conduct of the husband and his relatives towards the
married woman. The provision together with allied provisions in Cr. P.C. are so
implication of several relatives of the husband have been pouring in. Though
there are widespread complaints and even the judiciary has taken cognizance
regards the extent of the alleged misuse. There are different versions about it
2. Judicial decisions
2.1 In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand1 (supra) decided in
2010, the Supreme Court observed that a serious relook of the provision is
implicate husband and all his immediate relations. The Supreme Court
directed the Registry to send a copy of judgment to the Law Commission and
Union Law Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger
interests of society. In an earlier case also - Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI2
(2005), the Supreme Court lamented that in many instances, complaints under
s.498A were being filed with an oblique motive to wreck personal vendetta and
observed. “It may therefore become necessary for the Legislature to find out
1
AIR 2010 SC 3363
2
2005 6 SCC 281
3
appropriately dealt with”. It was also observed that “by misuse of the
2.2 Various High Courts in the country have also noted that in several
instances, omnibus allegations are made against the husband and his
relations and the complaints are filed without proper justification. The need to
exercise caution in the case of arrest of the husband and his relatives has been
becomes remote and problematic. In some of the cases, directions were given
by the High Courts for regulating the power of arrest and for taking necessary
steps to initiate conciliatory effort at the earliest point of time. Reference may
be made in this context to the decision of Delhi High Court in Chandrabhan Vs.
Madras High Court in the case of Tr. Ramaiah Vs. State (order dated 7.7.2008
and 4.8.2008 in MP No.1 of 2008 in Crl. O.P. No.10896 of 2008). In the former
case, it was observed that “there is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints
are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also
a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility, the
hapless children are the worst victims”. The following directions were given to
4
settlement, then, necessary steps should, in the first instance, be
taken to ensure return of sthridhan and dowry articles to the
complainant.
v) Arrest of main accused be made only after thorough investigation has
been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
vi) In the case of collateral accused such as in-laws, prior approval of
DCP should be there on the file.”
NGOs and social workers working for upliftment of women should set up a
desk in Crime Against Women Cell to provide them with conciliation services,
so that before the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably
settled at that very stage. The need to explore the possibility of reunion and
conciliation when the case reaches the Court was also stressed. In conclusion,
it was observed that in these matters, the parties themselves can adopt a
2.3 In an earlier judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of “Court on its
own in Motion vs. CBI”, reported in 109 (2003) Delhi Law Times 494, similar
directions were issued to the police and courts regarding arrest, grant of bail,
conciliation etc. It appears that these procedural directions issued by the High
Court are being followed in Delhi as stated by senior police officers of Delhi,
though according to the version of some lawyers, there are many instances of
violation at the police station level. It is to be mentioned that after the order in
5
Standing Order No.330 of 2008 compiling the “Guidelines for Arrest” as laid
down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. The judgments relevant to
Section 498-A and the directions issued therein were referred to in the
2.4 The directives given by the Madras High Court in the case of Tr. Ramiah
are as follows:
issued a circular to the effect that the said orders of the Court should be
strictly followed. In the further order dated 4.8.2008, the Court observed that
when the I.O. seeks remand of the accused, the Magistrate must examine the
necessity therefor and the remand should not be ordered mechanically on the
mere request of the I.O. The Magistrate should be satisfied that sufficient
grounds exist for directing remand. Further, the Court deprecated the practice
2.6 As regards the decisions of Delhi and Madras High Courts referred to
above, there are a few comments which we consider appropriate to make. The
goes to the extent of saying that arrest can be made only after filing of the final
report before the Magistrate and on the basis of non-bailable warrant issued by
whether the registration of FIR can be deferred for sometime i.e., till initial
Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to
enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a
2.7 However, in a recent case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4, the
question whether a police officer is bound to register the FIR when a cognizable
bench of Supreme Court in view of the apparent divergence in views. The law
various States have to follow the law laid down or directives issued by the
respective High Courts in regard to registration of FIR till the law is settled by
the Supreme Court. Shri Amarjit Singh, ld. Member of the Commission has
suggested that except in cases of physical violence, the FIR need not be
F.I.Rs under S, 498-A is a matter on which a fresh look could be taken after
the Supreme Court interprets the relevant Sections in the above case.
3
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
4
AIR 2012 SC 1515
8
3. Some data regarding Prosecutions u/s 498-A
received from the Hon’ble High Courts (during the year 2011), 3,40,555 cases
under Section 498-A IPC were pending trial in various courts towards the end
This does not include cases pertaining to Punjab and Haryana (statistics not
unjustified in a large number of decided cases. While so, it appears that the
women especially from the poor strata of the society living in rural areas rarely
take resort to the provision, though they are the worst sufferers. However,
according to Delhi Police officials, with whom the Commission had interacted,
women from poor background living in slums are also coming forward to file
complaints.
for the year 2011 (Table4), 3,39,902 cases under S,498A were pending trial in
various courts at the end of the year and 29,669 cases under S,304-B of IPC.
The conviction rate in S,498A cases is 21.2% and in S,304-B cases, it is 35.8%.
Number of cases reported under S,498A in the year 2011 are 99,135 and
during the two previous years, they were 94,041 and 89,546. Thus, there is
slight increase (about 5%) in the reported cases every year. As stated earlier,
9
crimes in the States. For instance, when compared to other cities, the
The dowry-death cases (S,304-B) reported during the years 2009-11 are: 8,383,
8,391 and 8,618. There is a view-point that if the offence under S,498A is
3.3 As noticed earlier, the conviction rate in respect of the cases under
not evince interest in taking the prosecution to its logical conclusion. Further,
conviction rate.
4.1 The arguments for relieving the rigour of s.498A by suitable amendments
(which find support from the observations in Court judgments and Justice
The harsh law, far from helping the genuine victimized women, has
become a source o blackmail and harassment of husbands and others.
Once a complaint (FIR) is lodged with the Police under s.498A/406 IPC, it
becomes an easy tool in the hands of the Police to arrest or threaten to
arrest the husband and other relatives named in the FIR without even
considering the intrinsic worth of the allegations and making a preliminary
investigation. When the members of a family are arrested and sent to jail,
with no immediate prospect of bail, the chances of amicable re-conciliation
or salvaging the marriage, will be lost once and for all. The possibility of
reconciliation, it is pointed out, cannot be ruled out and it should be fully
explored. The imminent arrest by the Police will thus be counter-
productive. The long and protracted criminal trials lead to acrimony and
10
bitterness in the relationship among the kith and kin of the family.
Pragmatic realities have to be taken into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial matters with due regard to the fact that it is a sensitive family
problem which shall not be allowed to be aggravated by over-
zealous/callous actions on the part of the Police by taking advantage of
the harsh provisions of s.498A of IPC together with its related provisions in
CrPC. It is pointed out that the sting is not in s.498A as such, but in the
provisions of CrPC making the offence non-compoundable and non-
bailable.
4.2 The arguments, on the other hand, in support of maintaining the status
the society who have been the victims of cruelty and harassment. The social
purpose behind it will be lost if the rigour of the provision is diluted. The
abuse or misuse of law is not peculiar to this provision. The misuse can
however be curtailed within the existing framework of law. For instance, the
unnecessary arrests and to strictly observe the procedures laid down in the law
complicity of those against whom accusations are made. The “Crime Against
Women Cells” should be headed by well trained and senior lady police officers.
These steps would go a long way in preventing the so-called misuse. Side by
side, steps can be taken to effect conciliation between the spouses in conflict
and the recourse to filing of a charge-sheet under s.498A shall be had only in
cases where such efforts fail and there appears to be a prima facie case.
11
Counselling of parties should be done by professionally qualified counsellors
and not by the Police. These views have been echoed among others by the
Police station to make a complaint against her husband and other close
relations only out of despair and being left with no other remedy against
allowed to take its own course rather than over-reacting to the misuse in some
cases. There is also a view expressed that when once the offending family
members get the scent of the complaint, there may be further torture of the
complainant and her life and liberty may be endangered if the Police do not act
swiftly and sternly. It is contended that in the wake of ever increasing crimes
498-A is not warranted. Secondly, during the process of mediation also, she is
care of.
arrest the husband and even his other family members (named in the FIR), (b)
relations residing in the marital home and even outside the home, overtaken by
feelings of emotion and vengeance or on account of wrong advice, and (c) lack
12
of professional, sensitive and empathetic approach on the part of the police to
(i) Section 498A, IPC, provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005
have an element of commonality and need to be harmonized and
uniformly implemented;
(ii) Police should in the interest of the protection of the constitutional
rights of a citizen ensure that no arrest should be made without a
reasonable satisfaction after some investigation as to the
genuineness and bonafide of a complaint and the need to effect
arrest;
(iii) Creation of Mahila Desks at police station and Crime Against
Women (CAW) Cell, at least at the district level which would
specifically deal the complaints made by women. When a wife
moves to file a complaint to a women cell, a lot of persuasion and
conciliation is required. The Legal Service Authorities of the States
/ UTs, National Commission for Women, NGO and social workers
should set up a desk in CAW Cell to provide conciliation services to
the women so that before the state machinery is set in motion the
matter is amicably settled at that every stage;
(iv) In case of matrimonial disputes, the first recourse should be
effective conciliation and mediation between the warring spouses
and their families and recourse of filing charges under Section
498A, IPC may be resorted to in cases where such conciliation fails
and there appears a prima facie case of Section 498A of IPC and
other related laws; and
(v) Counseling mechanism envisaged under the PWDVA should be
implemented by State Governments and counseling of parties
should be done only by professionally qualified counselors and not
by the police. The police may consider empanelling professional
counselors with CAW Cells.
13
7. The Approach and views of the Commission broadly
7.1 The Commission is of the view that the Section together with its allied
harassment and become a tool of indiscreet and arbitrary actions on the part of
the Police. The fact that s.498A deals with a family problem and a situation of
marital discord unlike the other crimes against society at large, cannot be
forgotten. It does not however mean that the Police should not appreciate the
the Police should play a passive role. S.498A has a lofty social purpose and it
should remain on the Statute book to intervene whenever the occasion arises.
away its teeth wholesale. The re-evaluation of Section 498-A merely on the
ground of abuse is not warranted. Besides that, while courts are confronted
we cannot close our eyes to a large number of cases which go unprosecuted for
a variety of reasons.
7.2 Section 498-A has to be seen in the context of violence and impairment
of women’s liberty and dignity within the matrimonial fold. Mindless and
senseless deprivation of life and liberty of women could not have been dealt
with effectively through soft sanctions alone. Even though values of equality
and non-discrimination may have to gain deeper roots through other social
14
measures, the need to give valuable protection to vulnerable sections of women
cannot be negated.
not inclined to take a view that dilutes the efficacy of s.498A to the extent of
defeating its purpose especially having regard to the fact that atrocities against
women are on the increase. A balanced and holistic view has to be taken on
weighing the pros and cons. There is no doubt a need to address the misuse
some with extreme emphasis and connotations, the point to be noted is that
the value to be attached to the rights of women are no less than the value to be
attached to the family as a unit and vice-versa. The challenge before the
among the poor and illiterate living in rural areas who face quite often the
women, the men should be apprised of the penal and other provisions of law
aggrieved women to the Taluka and District level Legal Service Authorities
15
and/or credible NGOs with professional counsellors should be ensured by
scenario.
7.5 There is an all-round view that the lawyers whom the aggrieved women
or their relations approach in the first instance should act with a clear sense of
responsibility and objectivity and give suitable advice consistent with the real
advice of legal professionals and the sensitivity of Police officials dealing with
the cases are very important, and if these are in place, undoubtedly, the law
will not take a devious course. Unfortunately, there is a strong feeling that
some lawyers and police personnel have failed to act and approach the problem
(individuals, officials and organizations) who say that it should remain a non-
16
Andhra Pradesh have already made it compoundable. The Supreme Court, in
the case of Ramgopal v. State of M. P. in SLP (Crl.) No. 6494 of 2010 (Order dt.
July 30, 2010), observed that the offence under S, 498-A should be made
offence should be made bailable at least with regard to husband’s relations and
in respect of the cases failing under second part of the Explanation Clause (b)
to Section 498-A.
report (237th Report) under the title of “Compounding of IPC Offences”. The
17
8.4 In the 154th Report of the Law Commission also, there was a clear
Sabha) in the report presented on 7.09.2011, observed thus at para 13.2 under
the heading “Making the offence under Section 498A IPC compoundable”:
“The Committee notes that the offence under Section 498A IPC is
essentially a fallout of strained matrimonial relationship for which there
might be various considerations. Since there can be various causes
leading to an offence under Section 498A, IPC and parties to the marriage
could be responsible for the same in varying degrees, it would be
appropriate if the remedy of compromise is kept open to settle a
matrimonial dispute. In this context, the Committee feels that in case of
any marital discord which has reached the stage of a complaint under
Section 498A, IPC, it would be better if the parties have the option of a
compromise whereafter they can settle down in their lives appropriately for
a better future rather than diverting their energies negatively by pursuing
litigation. The Committee recommends to the Government to consider
whether the offence under Section 498A, IPC can be made compoundable.”
Committee reinforces the view taken by the Law Commission in 237th Report
the offence under Section 498A should continue to be cognizable and non-
bailable while “strongly recommending” that “the ill-effects and miseries of the
provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short
PDV Act) which is an allied and complementary law, is quite apposite. The
said Act was enacted with a view to provide for more effective protection of
rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the
family. Those rights are essentially of civil nature with a mix of penal
provisions. Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence in very wide terms. It
encompasses the situations set out in the definition of ‘cruelty’ under Section
498A. The Act has devised an elaborate machinery to safeguard the interests of
Protection Officers who will be under the control and supervision of a Judicial
Magistrate of First Class. The said officer shall send a domestic incident report
to the Magistrate, the police station and service providers. The Protection
Officers are required to effectively assist and guide the complainant victim and
provide shelter, medical facilities, legal aid etc. and also act on her behalf to
present an application to the Magistrate for one or more reliefs under the Act.
The Magistrate is required to hear the application ordinarily within 3 days from
the date of its receipt. The Magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings
direct the respondent and/or the aggrieved person to undergo counseling with
19
a service provider. ‘Service Providers’ are those who conform to the
requirements of Section 10 of the Act. The Magistrate can also secure the
him. Under Section 18, the Magistrate, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the Respondent and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has
and/or aiding or abetting all acts of domestic violence. There are other powers
reliefs. Section 23 further empowers the Magistrate to pass such interim order
one year (vide Section 31). By the same Section, the Magistrate is also
Prohibition Act. A Protection Officer who fails or neglects to discharge his duty
Section 33). The provisions of the Act are supplemental to the provisions of any
other law in force. The right to file a complaint under Section 498A is
9.2 An interplay of the provisions of this Act and the proceedings under
20
secondary victimization of a complainant who has lodged FIR under s.498A. (2)
Paving the way for counseling process under the supervision of Magistrate at
Some of the important and typical responses are compiled in Annexure III-B.
As many as 244 Judicial Officers from various States including Registrars and
Directors of Judicial Academies and Officials (most of them are Police Officers)
and members of legal academia have sent their responses. 100 of them
suggested that the offence should be made bailable. However, 119 of them have
expressed the view that it should remain non-bailable. Among the individuals,
a vast majority of them suggested that it should be made bailable. Some have
made gender neutral. There are three Non-Resident Indians among the
The tales of woes and harassment caused on account of false complaints have
woman should be made accountable for such false and frivolous complaints.
21
Some State Governments and Union Territories also gave their suggestions.
Their views are compiled in Annexure III-C. Most of the respondents including
those who are not in favour of change emphasized the need for verification of
facilitator of conciliation and mediation processes and the need for closer
coordination between the police and LSAs in this regard has also been pointed
out by many of them. It is also stated that LSAs can play a greater role in
other ld. Members and officials of the Commission had occasions to interact
Conferences, the general consensus was that the offence under Section 498-A
should be made compoundable with the permission of the Court and it should
concern over complaints filed with false allegations or over implication and
matters of this nature. So also, the plight of the aggrieved women who go to the
Police Stations and who in a state of emotion and confusion tend to file
Officers in Delhi have stated that the percentage of misuse is minimal and
22
most of the complaints are quite genuine though at times the complaints are
instigated to make some exaggerated and untrue allegations. They gave details
of the practices that are being followed by Delhi Police especially in regard to
caused by NRI women filing dual complaints i.e., in Delhi under S, 498-A as
well as the relevant laws in force governing domestic violence in the country
where they last resided with the accused husband. In regard to misuse
dimensions, there were different versions from the Police Officers in some other
States. There was a divided opinion among the lawyers and judges (who
the lawyers, both men and ladies in one voice stated that it should be made
of time. The same was the opinion expressed at the conferences in Judicial
11.1 That Section 498A has been misused in many instances admits of no
doubt. This has been taken judicial notice of in several cases. The
Parliamentary Committee has also adverted to this aspect. The inputs received
by the Law Commission and the representations made to the Home Ministry.
also confirm this fact. However, there is no reliable data to reveal the extent of
23
women are mostly coming forward to file the complaints under this section.
The data also reveals that in most of the cases, apart from the husband, two of
his relations (especially in-laws) are being prosecuted. At the same time, the
Commission feels that misuse arising from exaggerated versions and over
it bailable. Depriving the police of the power to arrest without warrant in order
to have proper investigation would defeat the objective of the provision and may
it is made bailable. It is to be noted that the misuse did not flow from the
section itself but the roots of misuse were grounded on the insensitive police
her cool and objective thinking, quite often, unwittingly signs a complaint
such measures as would ensure the strict observance of the law governing
arrest as evolved in D.K. Basu’s case and incorporated in the statute i.e., in
Chapter-V of Cr. P.C. The police at present either overact or adopt indifferent
attitude in many a case. They are expected to act with due sensitivity and
with the realization that they are dealing with an alleged offence arising out of
strained matrimonial relations and that nothing should be done to disrupt the
24
arrest and such other drastic measures should not close the doors for
restorative, not merely penal goal of the law. It may be noted that even under
12.1 Power of arrest vested with the Police Officer in a cognizable offence is no
doubt a potent weapon to enforce the penal provision. However, this weapon
should be sparingly drawn out of its sheath and wielded only if necessary. It
shall not be used at the whim and fancy of the I.O. or be treated as a panacea
for checking such offences. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with
the rest is despicable. Mechanical, casual and hasty application of the power
Art. 21. Such attitude is at the root of misuse of S. 498A. The provisions in
Cr.PC regulating and channelizing the power of arrest should act as guiding
star to the police and their spirit and purpose should be foremost in their
minds. Overreach is as bad as inaction. The need for caution in exercising the
drastic power of arrest in the context of cases u/s 498-A has been emphasized
time and again by the Courts and the parliamentary Committee. Similarly, the
need to keep the doors for reconciliation open and to restore the family ties if
25
possible has also been highlighted in many judgments and even in statutory
and indiscriminate arrests are an anathema to the rule of law and values of
a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique
criteria.
for arbitrary action on the part of police is minimized. Needless to say that
the power of arrest is coupled with the duty to act reasonably. S. 498-A admits
expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court
26
realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of
balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and
balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of
individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the
weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first the criminal or society,
the law violator or the law abider; of meeting the challenge which Mr. Justice
12.4 The need to balance personal liberty with law enforcement has been
stressed in Nandini Satpathy’s case5 by quoting Lewis Mayers: The paradox has
been put sharply by Lewis Mayers: “To strike the balance between the needs of
law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from
other is a perennial problem of statecraft. The pendulum over the years has
13. Analysis of the provisions relating to arrest and the duty of police
13.1 Now, let us analyse the provisions relating to arrest in Chapter-V and
evolve some guidelines as to how the police is expected to act when a FIR
5
AIR 1978 SC
27
13.2 Section 41, Cr. P.C., as recast by Act 5 of 2009, lays down certain
conditions and restrictions for arresting a person without an order from the
Magistrate and without a warrant. There are three situations dealt with by
the presence of a police officer. He can be arrested straight away. We are more
concerned with clauses (b) and (ba). Clause (ba) relates to power of arresting a
person against whom credible information has been received that he has
may extend to more than seven years or with death sentence. Thus, the more
serious cognizable offences are within the ambit of clause (ba). The conditions
for arrest without warrant as set out in clause (ba) are (i) receipt of credible
information of cognizable offence; and (2) on the basis of such information, the
police officer ‘has reason to believe’ that the such person has committed the
offence. The preceding clause (b) governs cognizable offences punishable with
for arrest have been laid down in Cl.(b). A reasonable complaint’ or ‘a credible
cognizable offence triggers the application of this part of section 41. In such a
cumulatively. First the police officer should have ‘reason to believe’ on the
6
The punishment prescribed by S,498A is imprisonment extending to three years and fine.
28
belief on the basis of the complaint or information, the police officer has to be
satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes
envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (ii) of section 41(1)(b). For ready
followed by the police officer before resorting to the drastic power of arrest. The
conditions in other clauses of Section 41 are not relevant for our purpose and
extension of police custody, the Magistrate has to address the question whether
specific reasons have been recorded for arresting the person and if so, prima
facie, those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at
all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above
are attracted. To this limited extent, there could be judicial scrutiny at that
stage. If this scrutiny is there, the wrong committed by the police officer –
29
intentionally or unwittingly, could be reversed at the earliest. In Section 498-A
cases, it is not too easy to reach the satisfaction that one or more of the clauses
could very well be achieved by interrogating the accused in the course of initial
called upon to appear before the I.O. on the specified date as laid down in
Section 41-A. The I.O. cannot proceed on the assumption straightaway that
must always bear in mind that arrest is not the rule and it should be resorted
reports that many arrests in S. 498-A cases are made by police on extraneous
are also reports that the complaints under section 498-A do not receive serious
attention of police and the victim is always viewed with suspicion. Such police
parts. Clause (a) of the Explanation deals with aggravated forms of cruelty
which cause grave injury. Firstly, wilful conduct of such a grave nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide falls within the ambit of clause (a).
The second limb of clause (a) lays down that willful conduct which causes
clause (b) of the Explanation. When the FIR coupled with the statement of the
30
victim woman discloses cruelty of grave nature falling within clause (a), the
police officer has to act swiftly and promptly especially if there is evidence of
physical violence. In the first instance, proper medical aid and the assistance
investigation should start without any loss of time. The need for arresting the
falling under clause (b). We are adverting to this fact in order to make it clear
that our observations earlier do not mean that under no circumstances, the
power of arrest shall be initially resorted to or that the I.O. should invariably
comes to close. We would like to stress that the discretion has to be exercised
reasonably having due regard to the facts of each case. Of course, the
always guide the discretion to be exercised by the police officer. While no hard
and fast rule as to the exercise of power of arrest can be laid down, we would
like to point out that a balanced and sensitive approach should inform the
decision of the I.O. and he shall not be too anxious to exercise that power.
There must be good and substantial reasons for arriving at the satisfaction that
Section 41(1)(b) of Cr. P.C. In this context, the Commission would like to stress
that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of
the reasons contained in the said clause for effecting arrest should be
31
necessary instructions in this regard which will serve as a safeguard against
observations made by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.7.
After referring to the 3rd report of National Police Commission, the Supreme
7
AIR 1994 SC 1349; (1994) 4 SCC 260
8
AIR 2011 SC 312 (Para 123)
32
“The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to
those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the
facts and circumstances of that case”.
14.1 Certain Dos and Don’ts to the police personnel by the Head of the police
dept. in order to inculcate the sense of responsibility and sensitivity is the need
of the hour. The abuse of the provision by resorting to the power of arrest
14.2 The FIR has to be registered as per law if it discloses an offence and the
Police Officer has reason to suspect the commission of offence (as laid down in
Section 157). However, on the point of registration of FIR, the police officials
14.3 On receiving the FIR, the police officer should cross-check with the
complainant the correctness of the contents and whether she voluntarily made
14.4 Then, without delay, the police officer must initiate the process of initial
investigation by visiting the house of the husband and have a first hand
account of the version of husband and other relations and take such measures
33
calculated to endanger the safety and liberty of the complainant. Both sides
be taken to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre if any or District Legal aid
or other Civil Service Officers (preferably lady officers) and lady IPS Officers
thirty days and then, depending on the outcome, they may proceed further in
that stage, if custodial interrogation is found necessary for the relevant reasons
the permission of DCP/SP level officer. Then I.O. shall also take such action as
14.5 In the case of Non-Resident Indians, it is reported that the passports are
seized when they come to India at the stage of investigation or they are sent to
the Passport Officer for passing an order of impounding. During the pendency
34
of the case in the Court, the prosecutor often requests the Court to direct
depositing of the passport as a condition for granting bail. This should not be
husband/accused and he will be exposed to the risk of losing the job and the
been done. The prospect of the accused remaining unemployed would not be in
the interests of both as the loss of earnings will have a bearing on the
maintenance claims of the wife, apart from depriving him of the means of
livelihood. The proper course would be to take bonds and sureties for heavy
the trial. This aspect should also be brought to the notice of concerned police
the correct approach and the instructions issued therein need to be reiterated
will be issued by them for guidance of police officials within their jurisdiction.
“To comply with the procedure as laid down In D.K. Basu’s case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement dated 18.12.96 in CRL CWP
No.539/86 – DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal has stated that the power
35
of arrest without warrant should be exercised only after a reasonable
satisfaction is reached, after some investigation as to the genuinness and
bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief as to both the person’s
complicity as well as the need to effect arrest. Therefore, in any
matrimonial dispute, it may not necessary in all cases to immediately
exercise the powers of arrest. Recourse may be initially taken to dispute
settlement mechanism such as conciliation, mediation, counseling of the
parties etc.”
15.2 The views of the National Commission for Women (extracted in 140th
the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the advisory issued
by it.
15.3 We have indicated earlier what the police is expected to do (vide paras 13
supra). These aspects should also form the subject matter of the
15.4 In some States, as noticed earlier, there are directives of the High Courts
as to how the police should handle the complaints under Section 498-A. Based
issued by the DGPs. It is needless to state that the High Court’s directives are
binding and a fresh circular cannot be issued by the DGP superseding the
proper course would be to apprise the High Court of the decision taken at the
36
conference of DGPs and to request the High Court to modify the directions
appropriately in the light of the decision taken so that there will be uniformity
desirable that the essential guidelines are placed within legislative framework,
16.2 We would like to add that this proposed sub-section is not something
materially different from the existing law and perhaps its utility lies in making
inappropriate use of provision while at the same time not diluting the
37
17. S, 358 of Cr.PC – raising the compensation limit
raise the compensation from rupees one thousand to rupees fifteen thousand.
The words “not exceeding one thousand rupees” shall be substituted by the
offence is punishable.
suggestion was made) that there must be a specific provision to punish women
no reason why only for S,498A cases, such a special provision shall be made.
In any case, the existing provisions, viz. S,182, 211 of IPC and S,250 of Cr.PC
can take care of malicious accusations etc, apart from Section 358 Cr.PC.
the states and Union Territories is providing necessary aid and assistance to
38
the hapless women who having gone to the Police Station with a genuine
or even unable to stay with relatives. Either they do not have parents who can
reluctance on the part of even close relations to allow her to stay with them
some time and there is no knowing what will be its outcome. Further, the
victim woman in distress would need immediate solace in the form of medical
cities, there are no Hostels and Shelter Homes worth mentioning which are
catering to the welfare of victimized women. Even if there are a few, no proper
facilities are in place. There are no Crisis Centres attached to Women Police
Stations even in major cities (excepting few) which can immediately provide
succour and relief to the women in distress. The Commission would therefore
victimized women leaving the matrimonial home and not in a position to stay
with their relatives for various reasons. The women who are worst hit if
assistance is not provided are those from the poor and middle class
background. The States should consider this problem on a priority basis and
39
initiate necessary steps to alleviate the suffering of women in need of help as a
19.1 Misuse of Section 498-A in many cases has been judicially noticed by the
apex court as well as various High Courts. This has also been taken note of by
ground to abolish S,498-A or to denude the Section of its teeth. The social
objective behind the Section and the need for deterrence should be kept in view
while at the same time ensuring that the complaints filed with false or
curbed.
19.2 The need to spread awareness of the provision and available remedies
especially in rural areas both among women and men is necessary and in this
regard the District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities, the media, the NGOs
19.3 All endeavours shall be made for effecting reconciliation at the earliest
with the help of professional counsellors, mediation and legal aid centres,
whom the parties have faith. An action plan has to be drawn up for forming
women. The I.O. should refrain from participating in the conciliation process.
40
19.4 The law on the question whether registration of FIR could be postponed
for a reasonable time is in a state of uncertainty. Some High Courts have been
directing that FIR shall not be registered under S, 498A (except in cases of
visible violence, and the like) till the preliminary investigation is done and
Bench of Supreme Court recently. In this regard, the police has to follow the
law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court until the Supreme Court decides
the matter.
19.5 The offence under S, 498-A shall be made compoundable, with the
is to make it compoundable.
19.6 The offence should remain non-bailable. However, the safeguard against
arbitrary and unwarranted arrests lies in strictly observing the letter and spirit
of the conditions laid down in Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr. PC relating to power
this nature. The need for custodial interrogation should be carefully assessed.
Over-reaction and inaction are equally wrong. Police should take necessary
harassment.
19.7 The Home Ministry’s Advisory dated 20th October 2009 on the subject of
41
conference of DGPs specially convened for this purpose by the Home Secretary,
they must be apprised of the need to follow the said principles and guidelines
monitoring mechanism in the police Dept. to keep track of S, 498A cases and
that as set out in para 16 above, sub-section (3) shall be added to Section 41
which is not materially different from the spirit underlying Sections 41 and 157
from one thousand rupees to fifteen thousand rupees and this proposed
19.10 The women police stations (under the nomenclature of Crimes Against
Well trained and educated lady police officers of the rank of Inspector or above
shall head such police stations. CWCs should be established in every district
and respected elders / professionals who can counsel and conciliate should be
maintained by SP/SSP for every district. There shall be separate room in the
police stations for women complainants and the accused women in S, 498-A
related cases.
42
19.11 Hostels or shelter homes for the benefit of women who would not like to
State.
should not be impounded mechanically and instead of that, bonds and sureties
19.13 Above all, the need for expeditious disposal of cases under section 498A
New Delhi
29 August 2012
43
Annexure – I
[refer para 1.1of the Report]
45
7.1 These views have been echoed among others by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development.
7.2 Further, it is pointed out that a married woman ventures to go to
the Police station to make a complaint against her husband and other
close relations only out of despair and being left with no other remedy
against cruelty and harassment. In such a situation, the existing law
should be allowed to take its own course rather than over-reacting to the
misuse in some cases.
7.3 There is also a view expressed that when once the offending family
members get the scent of the complaint, there may be further torture of
the complainant and her life and liberty may be endangered if the Police
do not act swiftly and sternly. It is contended that in the wake of ever
increasing crimes leading to unnatural deaths of women in marital
homes, any dilution of Section 498-A is not warranted. Secondly, during
the long–drawn process of mediation also, she is vulnerable to threats
and torture. Such situations too need to be taken care of.
8. There is preponderance of opinion in favour of making the said
offence compoundable with the permission of the court. Some States,
for e.g., Andhra Pradesh have already made it compoundable. The
Supreme Court, in a recent case of --*---, observed that it should be
made compoundable. However, there is sharp divergence of views on the
point whether it should be made a bailable offence. It is pleaded by some
that the offence under s.498A should be made bailable at least with
regard to husband’s relations.*Ramgopal v. State of M. P. in SLP (Crl.)
No. 6494 of 2010 (Order dt. July 30, 2010.
8.1 Those against compoundability contend that the women especially
from the rural areas will be pressurized to enter into an unfair
compromise and further the deterrent effect of the provision will be lost.
9. The Commission is of the view that the Section together with its
allied CrPC provisions shall not act as an instrument of oppression and
counter-harassment and become a tool of indiscreet and arbitrary
actions on the part of the Police. The fact that s.498A deals with a family
problem and a situation of marital discord unlike the other crimes
against society at large, cannot be forgotten. It does not however mean
that the Police should not appreciate the grievance of the complainant
woman with empathy and understanding or that the Police should play a
passive role.
10. S.498A has a lofty social purpose and it should remain on the
Statute book to intervene whenever the occasion arises. Its object and
purpose cannot be stultified by overemphasizing its potentiality for abuse
or misuse. Misuse by itself cannot be a ground to repeal it or to take
away its teeth wholesale.
11. While the Commission is appreciative of the need to discourage
unjustified and frivolous complaints and the scourge of over-implication,
it is not inclined to take a view that dilutes the efficacy of s.498A to the
extent of defeating its purpose especially having regard to the fact that
46
atrocities against women are on the increase. A balanced and holistic
view has to be taken on weighing the pros and cons. There is no doubt a
need to address the misuse situations and arrive at a rational solution –
legislative or otherwise.
12. There is also a need to create awareness of the provisions
especially among the poor and illiterate living in rural areas who face
quite often the problems of drunken misbehavior and harassment of
women folk. More than the women, the men should be apprised of the
penal provisions of law protecting the women against harassment at
home. The easy access of aggrieved women to the Taluka and District
level Legal Service Authorities and/or credible NGOs with professional
counsellors should be ensured by appropriate measures. There should
be an extensive and well-planned campaign to spread awareness.
Presently, the endeavour in this direction is quite minimal. Visits to few
villages once in a way by the representatives of LSAs, law students and
social workers is the present scenario.
13. There is an all-round view that the lawyers whom the aggrieved
women or their relations approach in the first instance should act with a
clear sense of responsibility and objectivity and give suitable advice
consistent with the real problem diagnosed. Exaggerated and tutored
versions and unnecessary implication of husband’s relations should be
scrupulously avoided. The correct advice of the legal professionals and
the sensitivity of the Police officials dealing with the cases are very
important, and if these are in place, undoubtedly, the law will not take a
devious course. Unfortunately, there is a strong feeling that some
lawyers and police personnel have failed to act and approach the
problem in a manner morally and legally expected of them.
14. Thus, the triple problems that have cropped up in the course of
implementation of the provision are:(a) the police straightaway rushing to
arrest the husband and even his other family members (named in the
FIR), (b) tendency to implicate, with little or no justification, the in-laws
and other relations residing in the marital home and even outside the
home, overtaken by feelings of emotion and vengeance or on account of
wrong advice, and (c) lack of professional, sensitive and empathetic
approach on the part of the police to the problem of woman under
distress.
15. In the context of the issue under consideration, a reference to the
provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for
short PDV Act) which is an allied and complementary law, is quite
apposite. The said Act was enacted with a view to provide for more
effective protection of rights of women who are victims of violence of any
kind occurring within the family. Those rights are essentially of civil
nature with a mix of penal provisions. Section 3 of the Act defines
domestic violence in very wide terms. It encompasses the situations set
out in the definition of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A. The Act has devised
an elaborate machinery to safeguard the interests of women subjected to
47
domestic violence. The Act enjoins the appointment of Protection
Officers who will be under the control and supervision of a Judicial
Magistrate of First Class. The said officer shall send a domestic incident
report to the Magistrate, the police station and service providers. The
Protections Officers are required to effectively assist and guide the
complainant victim and provide shelter, medical facilities, legal aid etc.
and also act on her behalf to present an application to the Magistrate for
one or more reliefs under the Act. The Magistrate is required to hear the
application ordinarily within 3 days from the date of its receipt. The
Magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings direct the respondent
and/or the aggrieved person to undergo counseling with a service
provider. ‘Service Providers’ are those who conform to the requirements
of Section 10 of the Act. The Magistrate can also secure the services of a
welfare expert preferably a woman for the purpose of assisting him.
Under Section 18, the Magistrate, after giving an opportunity of hearing
to the Respondent and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic
violence has taken place or is likely to take place, is empowered to pass a
protection order prohibiting the Respondent from committing any act of
domestic violence and/or aiding or abetting all acts of domestic violence.
There are other powers vested in the Magistrate including granting
residence orders and monetary reliefs. Section 23 further empowers
the Magistrate to pass such interim order as he deems just and proper
including an ex-parte order. The breach of protection order by the
respondent is regarded as an offence which is cognizable and non-
bailable and punishable with imprisonment extending to one year (vide
Section 31). By the same Section, the Magistrate is also empowered to
frame charges under Section 498A of IPC and/or Dowry Prohibition Act.
A Protection Officer who fails or neglects to discharge his duty as per the
protection order is liable to be punished with imprisonment (vide Section
33). The provisions of the Act are supplemental to the provisions of any
other law in force. A right to file a complaint under Section 498A is
specifically preserved under Section 5 of the Act.
15.1 An interplay of the provisions of this Act and the proceedings
under s.498A assumes some relevance on two aspects: (1) Seeking
Magistrate’s expeditious intervention by way of passing a protective
interim order to prevent secondary victimization of a complainant who
has lodged FIR under s.498A. (2) Paving the way for the process of
counselling under the supervision of Magistrate at the earliest
opportunity.
16. With the above analysis and the broad outline of the approach
indicated supra, the Commission invites the views of the
public/NGOs/institutions/Bar Associations etc. on the following points,
before preparing and forwarding to the Government the final report:
48
Questionnaire
1) a) What according to you is ideally expected of Police, on receiving the
FIR alleging an offence u/s 498A of IPC? What should be their
approach and plan of action?
b) Do you think that justice will be better meted out to the aggrieved
woman by the immediate arrest and custodial interrogation of the
husband and his relations named in the FIR? Would the objective of
s.498A be better served thereby?
2) a) The Supreme Court laid down in D.K. Basu (1996) and other cases
that the power of arrest without warrant ought not to be resorted to in
a routine manner and that the Police officer should be reasonably
satisfied about a person’s complicity as well as the need to effect
arrest. Don’t you agree that this rule applies with greater force in a
situation of matrimonial discord and the police are expected to act
more discreetly and cautiously before taking the drastic step of
arrest?
b) What steps should be taken to check indiscriminate and
unwarranted arrests?
3) Do you think that making the offence bailable is the proper solution
to the problem? Will it be counter-productive?
4) There is a view point supported by certain observations in the courts’
judgments that before effecting arrest in cases of this nature, the
proper course would be to try the process of reconciliation by
counselling both sides. In other words, the possibility of exploring
reconciliation at the outset should precede punitive measures. Do
you agree that the conciliation should be the first step, having regard
to the nature and dimension of the problem? If so, how best the
conciliation process could be completed with utmost expedition?
Should there be a time-limit beyond which the police shall be free
to act without waiting for the outcome of conciliation process?
5) Though the Police may tender appropriate advice initially and
facilitate reconciliation process, the preponderance of view is that the
Police should not get involved in the actual process and their role
should be that of observer at that stage? Do you have a different
view?
6) a) In the absence of consensus as to mediators, who will be ideally
suited to act as mediators/conciliators – the friends or elders known
to both the parties or professional counsellors (who may be part of
NGOs), lady and men lawyers who volunteer to act in such matters, a
Committee of respected/retired persons of the locality or the Legal
Services Authority of the District?
b) How to ensure that the officers in charge of police stations can
easily identify and contact those who are well suited to conciliate or
mediate, especially having regard to the fact that professional and
competent counsellors may not be available at all places and any
delay in initiating the process will lead to further complications?
49
7) a) Do you think that on receipt of complaint under S.498A,
immediate steps should be taken by the Police to facilitate an
application being filed before the Judicial Magistrate under the PDV
Act so that the Magistrate can set in motion the process of
counselling/conciliation, apart from according interim protection?
b) Should the Police in the meanwhile be left free to arrest the
accused without the permission of the Magistrate?
c) Should the investigation be kept in abeyance till the conciliation
process initiated by the Magistrate is completed?
5.3 Section 498A penalizes the husband or the relatives of the husband for
subjecting a woman to cruelty. The definition of cruelty as given in the Section
is in two parts: 1) Willful conduct of such a nature that is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (mental or physical), 2) Harassment of the woman with a view to
coercing her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security. Thus the dowry related harassment as well as violent
conduct on the part of the husband or his relations by causing injury or danger
to her life, limb or health, are comprehended within the scope of Section 498A.
Quite often, the prosecution under Section 498A IPC is coupled with
prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well.
51
the effective operation of law enacted to curb a social evil, it should not be
forgotten that the society is equally interested in promoting marital harmony
and the welfare of the aggrieved women. A rational and balanced approach is
all the more necessary for the reason that other avenues are open to the
reconciled couple to put an end to the criminal proceedings. One such course
is to file a ‘quash’ petition under Section 482 of CrPC in the High Court.
Whether it is necessary to drive them to go through this time consuming and
costly process is one pertinent question. If a wife who suffered in the hands of
the husband is prepared to forget the past and agreeable to live amicably with
the husband or separate honourably without rancor or revenge, the society
would seldom condemn such move nor can it be said that the legal recognition
of amicable settlement in such cases would encourage the forbidden evil i.e.
the dowry. Section 498A should not be allowed to become counter-productive.
In matters relating to family life and marital relationship, the advantages and
beneficent results that follow from allowing the discontinuance of legal
proceedings to give effect to a compromise or reconciliation would outweigh the
degree of social harm that may be caused by non-prosecution. If the
proceedings are allowed to go on despite the compromise arrived at by both
sides, either there will be little scope for conviction or the life of the victim
would become more miserable. In what way the social good is achieved
thereby? We repeat that a doctrinaire and isolated approach cannot be adopted
in dealing with this issue. The sensitivity of a family dispute and the individual
facts and circumstances cannot be ignored. Hence, the Commission is not
inclined to countenance the view that dowry being a social evil, compounding
should not be allowed under any circumstances. Incidentally, it may be
mentioned that many offences having the potentiality of social harm, not
merely individual harm, are classified as compoundable offences. Further, the
gravamen of the charge under Section 498-A need not necessarily be dowry-
related harassment. It may be ‘cruelty’ falling only within clause (a) of the
Explanation and the demand of dowry is not an integral part of that clause.
5.5 Another argument against compoundability is that the permission to
compound would amount to legal recognition of violence against women and
that the factum of reconciliation cannot be a justifiable ground to legally
condone the violence. The acceptance of such an argument would imply that
the priority of law should be to take the criminal proceedings to their logical
end and to inflict punishment on the husband irrespective of the mutual desire
to patch up the differences. It means – reconciliation or no reconciliation, the
husband should not be spared of the impending prosecution and the
punishment if any; then only Section 498A would achieve its objective. We do
not think that the objective of Section 498A will be better achieved by allowing
the prosecution to take its own course without regard to the rapprochement
that has taken place between the couple in conflict. As observed earlier, a
balanced and holistic approach is called for in handling a sensitive issue
affecting the family and social relations. Reconciliation without compounding
will not be practically possible and the law should not ignore the important
52
event of reconciliation. The emphasis should not be merely on the punitive
aspect of the law. In matters of this nature, the law should not come in the way
of genuine reconciliation or revival of harmonious relations between the
husband and estranged wife. Wisdom behind all prosecutions and
punishments is to explore a judicious mix of deterrence, deprivation of liberty
and repentance and reformation. Any emphasis on one aspect alone, as has
been found in the working of harsh and cruel punishment regimes, may
become a pigeonhole model.
5.6 The other argument which is put forward against compounding is that
hapless women especially those who are not much educated and who do not
have independent means of livelihood, may be pressurized and coerced to
withdraw the proceeding and the victim woman will be left with no option but
to purchase peace though her grievance remains unsolved. However, this
argument may not be very substantial. The same argument can be put forward
in respect of compoundable offences wherever the victims are women. The
safeguard of Court’s permission would, by and large, be a sufficient check
against the possible tactics that may be adopted by the husband and his
relations/friends. The function of the Court in this matter is not a mere
formality. The Judicial Magistrate or Family Court Judge is expected to be
extra-cautious and play an active role. In this regard, the judge can take the
assistance of a woman lawyer or a professional counselor or a representative of
Legal Services Authority and the woman concerned can be examined in his/her
chambers in the presence of one of them. Alternatively, the assistance of a lady
colleague can also be sought for examining a woman victim in the chambers.
Normally the trial Magistrates/Judges are sensitized in gender- related issues
in the course of training at the Judicial Academies. In cities like Delhi,
Bangalore, Chennai etc. competent and trained mediators are involved in the
process of bringing about an amicable settlement in marital disputes. Though
the Court is expected to act with due care and caution in dealing with the
application for compounding the offence under Section 498A, we are of the view
that it is desirable to introduce an additional safeguard as follows:-
53
shall be open to the aggrieved woman to file an application revoking her
earlier offer to compound the offence on sufficient grounds.
5.8 The other points which deserve notice in answering the issue whether the
offence under Section 498A should be made compoundable, are the following:–
th
5.8.1 The Law Commission of India in its 154 report (1996) recommended
inclusion of S. 498A in the Table appended to Section 320(2) so that it can be
compounded with the permission of the Court. The related extracts from the
Report are as follows: “Of late, various High Courts have quashed criminal
proceedings in respect of non-cognizable offences because of settlement between
the parties to achieve harmony and peace in the society. For instance, criminal
proceedings in respect of offences under Section 406, IPC, relating to criminal
breach of trust of dowry articles or Istridhan and offences under section 498A,
IPC relating to cruelty on woman by husband or relatives of husband were
quashed in Arun Kumar Vohra v. RituVohra, Nirlap Singh v. State of Punjab.”
th
5.8.2 In continuation of what was said in the 154 Report, we may point out
11
that the apex court, in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana , has firmly
laid down the proposition that in order to subserve the ends of justice, the
inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings at the instance of husband and wife who have
amicably settled the matter and are desirous of putting end to the acrimony.
The principle laid down in this case was cited with approval in Nikhil Merchant
12 13
vs. CBI . However, a coordinate Bench doubted the correctness of these
decisions and referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench.
According to the referring Bench, the Court cannot indirectly permit
compounding of non-compoundable offences.
th
5.8.3 The recommendation of the Law Commission in the 154 Report
th
regarding Section 498A was reiterated in the 177 Report (2001). The
Commission noted that over the last several years, a number ofrepresentations
had been received by the Law Commission from individuals and organizations
to make the said offence compoundable.
54
“A less tolerant and impulsive woman may lodge an FIR even on a trivial act. The
result is that the husband and his family may be immediately arrested and there
may be a suspension or loss of job. The offence alleged being non-bailable,
innocent persons languish in custody. There may be a claim for maintenance
adding fuel to fire, especially if the husband cannot pay. Now the woman may
change her mind and get into the mood to forget and forgive. The husband may
also realize the mistakes committed and come forward to turn over a new leaf for
a loving and cordial relationship. The woman may like to seek reconciliation. But
this may not be possible due to the legal obstacles. Even if she wishes to make
amends by withdrawing the complaint, she cannot do so as the offence is non-
compoundable. The doors for returning to family life stand closed. She is thus left
at the mercy of her natal family…
This section, therefore, helps neither the wife nor the husband. The offence being
non-bailable and non-compoundable makes an innocent person undergo
stigmatization and hardship. Heartless provisions that make the offence non-
bailable and non-compoundable operate against reconciliations. It is therefore
necessary to make this offence (a) bailable and (b) compoundable to give a
chance to the spouses to come together.”
The Supreme Court in a brief order passed in Ramgopal vs. State of M.P.
observed that the offences under Section 498A, among others, can be made
compoundable by introducing suitable amendment to law. The Bombay High
Court14, as long back as in 1992, made a strong suggestion to amend Section
320 of CrPC in order to include Section 498A within that Section.
15
In the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand , the Supreme Court,
speaking through Dalvir Bhandari, J. exhorted the members of the Bar to treat
every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and to make a
55
serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at amicable resolution of that
human problem. The Supreme Court then observed that the Courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration. Further, it was observed: “Before parting
with the case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire
provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very
large number of cases”. The Supreme Court then made these observations: “It is
imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary
changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send copy of
this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,
Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law &
Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society”.
5.9 Yet another factor that should be taken note of is the policy of law in laying
stress on effecting conciliation between the warring couples. The provisions in
Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 Section23 (2) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and Section 34(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 impose an
obligation on the court to take necessary steps to facilitate re-conciliation or
amicable settlement.
5.10 It is worthy of note that in Andhra Pradesh, the State Legislature made an
nd
amendment to Section 320(2) of CrPC by inserting the following in the 2
Table.
The observations made by the High Court in various cases were taken into
account while making this amendment. The amendment came into force on
1.8.2003. Our recommendation is substantially on the same lines.
5.11 The overwhelming views reflected in the responses received by the Law
Commission and the inputs the Commission has got in the course of
56
deliberations with the members of District and Subordinate Judiciary, the
members of the Bar and the law students is yet another reason persuading us
to recommend the amendment of law to make the offence under 498A
compoundable with the permission of Court. The list of respondents from
whom views have been received by the Commission is at Annexure 1-B. An
analysis of such views touching on the point of compoundability is furnished at
Annexure 1-A. The Consultation Paper-cum-Questionnaire on various aspects
of Section 498-A published by the Commission is attached hereto as Annexure-
2
5.12 At the Conference with judicial officers including lady officers, there was
almost unanimous opinion in favour of making the offence compoundable. The
lady lawyers who were present at the Conferences held in Visakhapatnam,
Chennai and Aurangabad did not oppose the move. At a recent Conference held
with about 35 Judicial Officers of various ranks at Delhi Judicial Academy,
there was unanimity on the point of compoundability. However, some Judges
expressed reservation about allowing 3 months gestation period for passing a
final order of compounding under Section 320(2) Cr PC. It was suggested that
there should be some flexibility in this regard and the 3 months’ period need
not be strictly adhered to especially where there is a package of settlement
concerning civil disputes as well. Keeping this suggestion in view, the
Commission has provided that in the interests of justice, the Magistrate can
pass orders within a lesser time.
5.13 The Law Commission is therefore of the considered view that the offence
under Section 498A IPC should be made compoundable with the permission of
the Court. Accordingly, in Table-2 forming part of Section 320(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the following shall be inserted after the entry referring to
Section 494 and before the entry relating to Section 500:
Sub-section (2A) shall be added to Section 320 CrPC, as set out in paragraph
5.6, page 17 supra.
57
Annexure – III
[refer para 10.1 of the Report]
S/Shri/Ms
1. Ms.Swati Goyal, Ahmedabad
2. Neeraj Gupta, Delhi
3. Vivek Srivastav, [email protected]
4. Sateesh K. Mishra, Delhi
5. Kalpak shah, Ahmedabad
6. Samir Jha, [email protected]
7. Kharak Mehra, Nainital
8. Saurabh Grover, [email protected]
9. Komal Singh, New Delhi
10. Kaushalraj Bhatt, Ahmedabad
11. Alka Shah, Ahmedabad
12. Saumil Shah, Ahmedabad
13. Trilok Shah, Ahmedabad
14. Alpak Shah, Ahmedabad
15. Bhavna Shah Ahmedabad
16. Kaushal Kishor & 27 other residents of Visakhapatnam.
17. iamamit, [email protected]
18. Vishnuvardhana Velagala, [email protected]
19. Hari Om Sondhi, New Delhi
20. Kharak Singh Mehra, Nainital
21. Virag R. Dhulia, Bangalore
22. Ms Kumkum Vikas Sirpurkar, New Delhi
23. Gaurav Bandi, Indore.
24. Gaurav Sehravat, [email protected]
25. Ashish Mishra, Lucknow
26. Umang Gupta, Rampur, Balia
27. Avadesh Kumar Yadav, Nagpur
28. T.R. Padmaja, Secunderabad
29. T.C. Raghwan, Secunderabad
30. C. Shyam Sunder, Hyderabad
31. Ms. Shobha Devi, R. R Dt, Hyderabad
32. A Nageshwar Rao, Hyderabad
33. Praveen Chand, Hyderabad
34. R.B. Timma Ready, Hyderabad
35. A. Venu Gopal, kadapa, Hyderabad
36. Aditya, Hyderabad
58
37. B. Y Lal, Hyderabad
38. Subramaniyam Catari, Hyderabad
39. A Sai Kiran, Hyderabad
40. S. Jagannath, Bangalore
41. Prasad Chuilal, Pune
42. Biswadeep Paul, Pune
43. Avinash D. Gune, Pune
44. Damodar Varde, Indore
45. Kedar Ambedakar, Pune
46. Sandesh V. Chopdekar, Pune
47. Devkant Varde, Pune
48. Sanjeet Gupta, Pune
49. Cedric D’Souza, Pune
50. Amandeep Bhatia, Pune
51. Arjun Singh Rawat, Pune
52. N.K. Jain, Ujjain
53. Raj Kumar Jain, Ujjain
54. Shashidhar Rao, Hyderabad
55. Mohammed Hidayatullah, Hyderabad
56. Chandra Shekhar, Hyderabad.
57. P. Sugunavathi, Hyderabad
58. V. David, Hyderabad
59. Reddy Vidyadhar, R.R. District, Hyderabad.
60. Eshwar Lal, R.R. District, Hyderabad.
61. A. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad
62. M.V. Rama Mohan, Hyderabad
63. K.V. Indira, Kerala
64. P. Raju, Bangalore
65. G.R. Reddy, Hyderabad
66. D.S. Nathaniel, Hyderabad
67. K. Sriram, Hyderabad
68. Rajneesh K.V. Hyderabad
69. M. V. Aditya, Hyderabad
70. P. Ranga Rao, Hyderabad
71. T.V. S. Ram Reddy, R.R. District, Hyderabad.
72. R. Rahul, Nizamabad
73. J.P. Sahu, Damoh
74. B. Vinod Kumar, Nizamabad
75. Ponviah Catari, Hyderabad
76. P.K. Acharya, Hyderabad
77. B. Yamuna, Chennai
78. J.Sarat Chandra, Anantpur
79. P.N. Rao, Amalapuram
80. K. Narasaiah, Hyderabad
81. K. Ramakrishna Rao, Rajamundry
82. D.N. Samuel Raj, Hyderabad
59
83. D.N. Lavaney, Hyderabad
84. V. Madhani, Secunderabad
85. R. Rajashekhar Reddy, Hyderabad
86. P. Srirama Murthy, Hyderabad
87. K.L. Swapana, Rajamundry
88. Gauri Sankar, Hyderabad
89. L. Narsinga Rao, Hyderabad
90. Sushil Kumara Acharya, Hyderabad
91. D.N. Kerupavasam, Hyderabad
92. T. Ramesh, Hyderabad
93. P. Satish Kumar, Hyderabad
94. T. Srinivas, Nalgouda
95. M. Satish Kiran, R.R. District, Hyderabad
96. Parthasarathi, Secunderabad
97. Saraswati Devi, Hyderabad
98. A. Rangabyha, Hyderabad
99. T. Annapurna, R.R. District, Hyderabad
100. Saah Ali Ahmed, Secunderabad
101. A.Sai Nath, Hyderabad
102. S. Manasa, Hyderabad
103. Sameer Baksi, Kharagpur, West Bengal
104. Rumi Dey, West Bengal
105. Bhanu Dey, Kharagpur, West Bengal
106. Suman Kr. Dey, Kharagpur, West Bengal
107. Tinni Gaur, Jabalpur
108. Arun Yadav, Jabalpur
109. T. Salgu, Ujjain
110. Ashish Gupta, Ujjain
111. T. M. Kamran, Pune
112. Pushpal Swarnkar, Durg
113. Col. H. Sharma, Noida
114. Rana Mukherjee, Advocate, Hony. Secy, Bar Association, High
Court, Kolkata.
115. Nagarathna A., Asstt. Professor Law, NLSIU, Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore.
116. Raj Ghosal, Thane (W), Maharashtra
117. Pankaj R. Sontakke, Kandivali (E), Maharashtra
118. Ashish Agarwal, Vikhroli (W), Maharashtra
119. Savio Fernandez, Thane (W), Maharashtra
120. Anand M. Jha, Kalyan (W), Maharashtra
121. Sachchidanand Singh Patel, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
122. Arghya Dutta, Nerul, Maharashtra
123. Debabrata Bhadra, Jamsedpur, Jharkhand
124. Vikas Jhunjhun wala, Worli, Maharashtra
125. Mukund Jhala, Singh Darwaza, Burdwan.West Bengal.
126. Sandip De, Dombivalli (E), Maharashtra
60
127. Anurag Joshi, Thane (W), Maharashtra
128. Gayatri Devi, Sagar Road, Hyderabad
129. Ramesh Lal, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
130. Priyank Prakh, Manchester, USA
131. Katri Ram Venkatesh, Ranga Reddy, Distt.Andhra
Pradesh
132. Sarath Chandra P., Panjagutta, Hyderabad
133. Subba Rao P., Panjagutta Hyderabad
134. V. Kamalamma, Chandanagar, Hyderabad
135. Dr. P. Sudhir, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh
136. S.N. Kumar, Hyderabad
137. K.V.N.S. Laxmi, Rajamundry
138. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad
139. K.S. Ram, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad
140. M. Ram Babu, Janapriya Nagar Colony, Ranga Reddy Distt.
A.P.
141. Ram Prakash Sharma, Rohini, New Delhi
142. Manju Yadav, Jabalpur
143. Teeja Yadav, Adhartal, Jabalpur
144. Chandra Yadav,Adhartal, Jabalpur
145. Santosh Vishvakarma, Adhartal, Jabalpur
146. Ashutosh Yadav,Adhartal, Jabalpur
147. Amitabh Bhattacharya, Wardha Road, Nagpur
148. Krishna R.K. V., [email protected]
149. Milap Choraria, Rohini, New Delhi
150. Anand Ballabh Lohani, Haldwani, Uttarakhand
151. Partha Sadhukhan, Hyderabad
152. Ramesh Kumar Jain, [email protected]
153. Namadevan N., [email protected]
154. Pronoy Ghose, Cachar, Assam
155. Sibi Thomas, Baruch, Gujarat
156. R.S. Sharma, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh
157. T. Gopala Krishna, Chichmagular
158. N.S. Mahesh, Bangalore, Karnataka
159. Shailaja G. Harinath, Bangalore
160. V.V. Lakshmanan, Ambattur, Chennai
161. Jayesh M. Poria
162. P. Rukma Chary, Bangalore
163. Deepak Kesari, Bangalore
164. Rajshekhar C.R., Bangalore.
165. N.H. Shiggaon, Vignan Nagar, Bangalore
166. Ajay M.U. Electronic City, Bangalore.
167. Vardhaman Nair, Bangalore.
168. Krishna Murthy, Bangalore
169. Sashidhar CM, Vinayaka Extn. Bangalore,
170. Narayan Kumar, Bangalore
61
171. Amjad F. Jamador, Belgam, Karnataka
172. Mohd. Arshad, Ranganath Colony, Bangalore.
173. B.A. Pathan, Hubli, Karnatka
174. Pronoy Kumar Ghosh, Cachar, Assam
175. N. N. Suiggaon, Vignan Nagar, Bangalore
176. Radhikanath Mallick, Kolkata, West Bengal
177. Maqsud Mujawar, [email protected]
178. Saroj Bala Dhawan, DLF Gurgaon, Haryana
179. Virag R. Dhulia, C.C. Raman Nagar, Bangalore.
180. Rahmatulla Sheriff, Ganga Nagar, Bangalore
181. Avinash Kumar, Main HSR Layout, Bangalore
182. Ramakrishna, [email protected]
183. Rajkumar, Rohtak.
184. Ritesh Dehia, [email protected]
185. Viresh Verma, [email protected]
186. Sudha Chouranga Chakrabatrti, Hoogly, West Bengal.
187. Mrs. Manisha C. Shinkar
188. Dr. Chandrakant K Shinkar
189. Shri Nagi Reddy Maddigapu (Senior Citizen), Retired A.P.
State Agro Ind Dev. Corpn Emp., Macherla, Dist Guntur
190. Shri Harish Dewan, New Delhi
191. Ms. Sudha Gouranga Chakrabarti, Khirkee Lane, Chinsurah,
Hoogly, West Bengal
192. Dr. Mohan Singh Sath, 33, Westholme Gardens, Ruislip,
Middlesex, UK (NRI)
193. Shri Hemant Kumar Verma, Sr. Lecturer Civil Engg Govt.
Polytechnic College, Ajmer Rajasthan
62
B. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS / INSTITUTIONS - RESPONDED TO THE
QUESTIONANNAIRE ON SECTION 498A IPC
63
C. LIST OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS - RESPONDED TO THE
QUESTIONANNAIRE ON SECTION 498A IPC
64
D. LIST OF JUDICIAL OFFICIALS/ OTHER OFFICIALS - RESPONDED TO THE
QUESTIONANNAIRE ON SECTION 498A IPC
S/Shri/Ms
1. Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Dr. Virender Aggarwal,
Director (Academics), Chandigarh.
2. M. M. Banerjee, Distt Judge, Birbhum, Suri.
3. Abhai Kumar, Registrar, High Court of M.P, Jabalpur.
(on behalf of Judicial officers, Training Institute)
4. Nungshitombi Athokpam, Dy. Legal Rememberancer, Govt.of
Manipur.
5. Vijay Kumar Singh, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jammu.
6. Shrikant D. Babaladi, Distt. Judge Member, Karnataka,
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
7. Bijender Kumar Singh, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Gopalgunj,
Bihar.
8. R.K. Watel, Distt. & Session Judge, Reasi(J&K)
9. *Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge, Kishtwar
10. S. N. Kempagoudar, Distt. Judge, Member, Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
11. Udayan Mukhopadhyay, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Purbi
Medinapur.
12. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur.
13. S.H. Mittalkod, Distt. & Sessions Judge, AIG-1, Govt. of
Mizoram.
14. Ranjit Kumar Baig, Distt. Judge, Malda, West Bengal.
15. Sanjit Mazumdar, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Malda,
West Bengal.
16. Anant Kumar Kapri, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Malda,
West Bengal.
17. Kaushik Bhattacharaya, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge,
Malda, West Bengal
18. Subodh Kumar Batabayal, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge,
Malda, West Bengal
19. Shri Gopal Chandra Karmakar, Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Malda, West Bengal.
20. Sanjay Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge,
Malda, West Bengal
21. Sibasis Sarkar, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Malda, West
Bengal
22. Sabyasahi Chattoraj, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Malda.
23. Ishan Chandra Das, Distt Judge, Burdwan.
24. L.K. Gaur, Special Judge, CBI-9, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
25. M.K. Nagpal, ASJ/Special Judge, NDOS, South & South
East Distt., Saket Courts, New Delhi.
26. Dr. Neera Bharihoke, ADJ-V, South Saket Court, New Delhi.
65
27. Sanjeev Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, South-Saket
Court, New Delhi.
28. Chetna Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, South- Saket Court,
New Delhi.
29. Sandeep Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, South- Saket Court,
New Delhi.
30. Anu Aggarwal, Civil Judge, South- Saket Court, New Delhi.
31. *District & Sessions Judge, Ambala
32. S.S. Lamba, District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
33. *District & Sessions Judge, Fatehbad.
34. *District & Sessions Judge, Rewari.
35. R.S. Virk, District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.
36. K. C. Sharma, District & Sessions Judge, Panipat.
37. *District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal.
38. * District & Sessions Judge, Jind.
39. Deepak Aggarwal, District & Sessions Judge, Jind.
40. D. N. Bhardwaj, District & Sessions Judge, Jind.
41. Dr. Chander Dass, Judicial Magistrate, Jind.
42. Praveen Kumar, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.-cum-Sub-Divn.
Judicial
Magistrate), Safidon.
43. Kumud Gungwani, Sub-Divn. Judicial Magistrate, Narwana.
44. Gurvinder Singh, Gill, District & Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh
Sahib.
45. Raj Rahul Garg, District & Sessions Judge, Karnal.
46. *District & Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
47. Narender Kumar, District Judge(Family Court), Bhiwani.
48. Rajinder Goel, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
49. Rajesh Kumar Bhankhar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani
50. Tarun Singal, Chief Judge (Jr.Divn.), Bhiwani.
51. Narender Singh, Chief Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhiwani.
52. Rajni Yadav, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) cum-Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu.
53. Balwant Singh, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) cum-Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhiwani.
54. Narender Sharma, Sub-Divn. Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi
Dadri.
55. A.S. Nayar, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Charkhi Dadri.
56. Parvesh Singla, Civil Judge, Charkhi Dadri.
57. Kuldeep Jain, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
58. Sanjiv Kumar, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
59. Gulab Singh, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
60. Vivek Bharti, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
61. Ritu Garg, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
62. Lal Chand, Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.)-cum-ACJM, Sonepat.
63. Madhulika, C.J.(J.D.)-cum-JMIC, Sonepat.
66
64. Ranjana Aggarwal, Addl. Civil.(Sr.Divn.), Sonepat.
65. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, C.J.(S.D.)-cum-JMIC, Sonepat.
66. Harish Gupta, Addl. Civil.(Sr.Divn.), Ganaur.
67. K.P. Singh, Addl. Civil.(Sr.Divn.), Gohana.
68. Sanjiv Jindal, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
69. Rajneesh Bansal, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
70. Sudhir Jiwan, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court, Narnaul.
71. Praveen Gupta, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.
72. Chander Hass, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.
73. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.
74. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge,
C.J.(JD)-cum-JMIC, Sonepat.
75. * Distt. & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
76. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sirsa.
77. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jhajjar.
78. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
79. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
80. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Panchkula.
81. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Pehowa.
82. Rajinder Pal Singh, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Pehowa.
83. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar.
84. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar.
85. Inderjit Singh, . Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
86. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Ferozpur.
87. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.
88. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Mansa.
89. Amit Kumar Garg, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurushetra.
90. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Kurushetra.
91. Manish Batra, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Kurushetra.
92. Harleen Sharma, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Kurushetra.
93. Sanjiv Kumar, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Kurushetra.
94. Sanjiv Arya, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurushetra.
95. Arun Kumar Singhal, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge,
Kurushetra.
96. Jagjit Singh, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Kurushetra.
97. Amarinder Sharma, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Kurushetra.
98. Raj Gupta, Civil Judicial Judge, Kurushetra.
99. Anudeep Kaur Bhatti, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Kurushetra.
100. Akshdeep Mahajan, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Mohindergarh.
101. Narender Pal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul.
102. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Hisar.
103. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
67
104. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Patiala.
105. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Hoshiapur.
106. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
107. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Bathinda.
108. *Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
109. Shri S. Sivaiah Naidu, Registrar General, Government of
Andhra Pradesh.
69
159. Shri C.B. Bajpai, District and Session Judge, Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
160. Shri Anil Kumar Shukla, District and Session Judge,
Dhamtari.
161. Shri Gautam Chourdiya, District and Sessions Judge, Janjgir,
Champa, Chhattisgarh
162. * District and Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur,
Chhattisgarh
163. Smt. Vimla Singh Kapoor, District and Session Judge, Korea,
Bakunthpur Chhattisgarh
164. Shri I.S. Ubojeba, District and Session Judge, Bastar,
Jagadalpur, Chhattisgarh
165. Smt. Satyabhama Ajay Dubey, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar
Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh
166. Shri N.S. Patel, Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Bhanupratap Pur,
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
167. Shri J.S. Patel, Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Dist N.B. Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
168. Shri Shiv Mangal Pandey, District and Session Judge, Raigar,
Chhattisgarh
169. Shri Prabhat Kumar Shastri, District & Sessions Judge,
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
170. Shri M.P. Singhal, District and Session Judge, Rajnadgaon,
Chhattisgarh
171. *District and Sessions Judge, Korba, Chhattisgarh
172. Shri A.K. Bek, JFMC (South Bastar Dantewada), Chhattisgarh
173. Smt. Anita Dharia, Addl. JFM, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
174. Shri Ramjivan Devgan, Civil Judge, class I, Bijapur,
Chhattisgarh
175. Shri V.K. Chanakya, Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Bastar,
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
176. Smt. Yogita Vinay Wasnik, Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, South
Bastar, Dantewada
177. Shri Yashwant Wasnik, Civil Judge, Class I, Sukma ,
Chhattisgarh
178. Shri Balram Kumar Devagan, District Magistrate, Class-II,
Bacheli, Dantewada
179. Shri Amrit Kerkatta, Civil Judge, class ISouth Bastar District,
Konta, Chhattisgarh
180. Smt. Anuradha Khare, District and Sessions Judge,
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh
71
205. Shri Ajit Prasad Varma, Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Koderma, Jharkhand
206. Shri Naveen Kumar, Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Lohardaga, Jharkhand
207. Shri Vishnu Kant Sahay, Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Palamau, Daltonganj, Jharkhand
208. Shri Binay Kumar Sahay, District and Sessions Judge, Pakur,
Jharkhand
209. Shri Rajesh Kumar Vaish, District & Sessions Judge,
Sahibganj, Jharkhand
210. Shri K.K. Srivastava, Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
211. Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, District & Sessions Judge,
Simdega, Jharkhand
212. Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Admn. Officer, Judicial
Academy Jharkahand, Ranchi
73
Annexure – III-A
[refer para 10.1 of the Report]
Partial
bailable 3 3 1 23 30
Repeal 74 0 1 1 76
No Comments 29 2 0 11 42
* Two NRIs
74
Annexure – III-B
[refer para 10.1 of the Report]
75
doubtful. Long pendency of cases discourages the complainants from
pursuing the matters further.
Shri Daruwala:
76
Judicial Officers Training Institute, (JOTRI), Jabalpur –
77
Dr. Neera Gupta: Offences under Section 498A to be made non-
cognizable, bailable. Persons who misuse the provision shall be penalized on
completion of trial by the very same court. Separate provisions should be
introduced for this purpose. Heavy fine of Rs.10 lakhs should be there.
Persons who use women-protection laws for settling personal scores should be
punished. The Section must be made gender neutral. Police should keep away
from counselling.
Police failure in taking timely action and in investigating the case on proper
lines commented upon. Police should act according to the existing law and they do
not need any directions to be cautious about these complaints as they are already
taking long time even to register the FIR. If the woman complaints of physical
violence, she should be immediately provided medical aid and the husband/in-laws
should be stopped from committing further acts of violence, if necessary by arresting
78
him. Custodial interrogation could yield good results. The police has to help the
victim woman by providing medical counseling and/or sending her to a shelter home.
Crisis centres should be set up at the block and district level.
The seriousness of the crime should not be diluted by making it bailable and
compoundable. Making it compoundable even with the permission of the Court will
only result in the woman facing more pressure to compromise. In any event, if a
compromise is reached, it gets recognition from the court to quash criminal
proceedings. Reconciliation should not be thrust upon the woman. It would be wrong
to first try to reconcile both the parties. Conciliation by a trained counselor should be
resorted to only if it can be carried out without compromising the rights and position
of the woman and only if the woman wants the return of dowry/streedhan to settle the
matter.
It would not be advisable to entrust the investigations to the CWCs to the exclusion of
regular Police Stations. The experience shows that CW Cells have not been positive.
The number of Police Stations should be increased and personnel properly trained.
CWCs should be headed by a lady DSP.
Shri Sivaiah Naidu, Registrar General, High Court of A.P. – Efforts for
conciliation should be made on receipt of complaint. Immediate arrest should not be
resorted to unless there is immediate danger to the victim or the husband is about to
leave the jurisdiction of Indian Courts. Make the offence bailable and compoundable.
Conciliation between the parties before effecting arrest is desirable and such
conciliation can take place through the institution of LSA. The panel of mediators may
consist of family welfare experts and trained counselors. LSAs in Taluka and District
levels should play a more active role. There should be CAW Cell at District
79
Headquarters and it shall be headed by Dy.SP rank officer. The woman police deployed
in this cell should have ample experience in life and proper awareness of laws related
to woman.
Shri R.R. Garg, District Judge, Karnal – No immediate arrest. First, matter to
be sent to Conciliation Board or Counseling/mediation centres. It should remain non-
bailable but compoundable. Need to spread awareness through print and electronic
media. CWC to be headed by woman police officer of the rank of S.P.
80
Shri Mangesh Kashyap, DCP (HQ), Delhi: Section 498(A) of IPC is certainly
needed in its unadulterated form. Some procedural improvements could be made
before registering FIR. In order to ensure that the facts are not exaggerated, the
aggrieved woman should be asked to write an application after few sessions of
interactions with a Counsellor. In case the complaint is found exaggerated benefit of
doubt should be given. All possible efforts should be made through counselling and
mediation to keep the woman and her children in the matrimonial home. Make it
non-bailable. Case registered under 498A should be investigated by officer in the
rank of Sub Inspector or above. They should be supervised regularly by an ACP once
in a fortnight and DCP / ADCP once in a month.
81
Annexure – III-C
[refer para 10.1 of the Report]
82
of a District Judge, Distt. Social Welfare Officer and a Woman Social
worker working in the specified field.
84
between the a aggrieved parties within one month with the help o Police
Officer or respectable citizens i.e. NGOs.
85