498 A: Apex Court and Judgements related to it. Shajeeda Tajdeen LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Jun 10, 2019, at ,01:52 PM Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar vs Union of India In September 2018, a three-judge bench altered the directions pronounced in the Rajesh Sharma case for preventing the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It recalled the previous provisions that were issued by a division bench stating that any complaints under Section 498A should be first inspected and investigated by the Family Welfare Committee before further legal action by Police. Apart from this modification, the bench left the other directions previously issued untouched. Rashmi Chopra vs The State of Uttar Pradesh In this case, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph rejected the contention that the complaint filed under this section should not be accepted as it is not filed by the victim but by her father on her behalf. The bench held that the section 498A nowhere states that the complaint should be filed only by the victim and thus, it does not exclusively debar other from filing the complaint on behalf of the women who have been subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. K.V Prakash Babu vs The State of Karnataka The Apex Court, in this case, stated that the husband’s involvement in an extramarital affair alone will not give rise to the provisions of section 498A/306. It further stated that mere suspicion in the mind of the wife owing to such an affair shall not be considered as mental cruelty. The case stated that the wife was hurt with the extramarital affair of her husband and thus she ended her life. The High Court had upheld the judgment of the trial court in which the husband was convicted under section 498A and also for abetting his wife’s suicide. The bench while setting aside the order stated that extramarital affairs might be an illegal and immoral act but to constitute a criminal offence the ingredients should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Heera Lal vs The State of Rajasthan The Apex Court bench comprising of Justice RF Nariman and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar held that in the event of a wife’s suicide, the acquittal of the relatives or her husband under 498A will restraint the prosecution to use the presumption available under section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act to consequently prove the abetment of suicide under section 306 of IPC. Further, the court also observed that harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty and the only fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there has been an act of abetment of suicide. Rupali Devi vs The State of Uttar Pradesh A three-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice L.Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul considered the following question, “whether in a case where cruelty had been committed in a matrimonial home by the husband and the relatives of the husband and the wife leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter in the parental home located at a different place, would the courts situated at the place of the parental home of the wife have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 498A, in a situation where no overt act of cruelty or harassment is alleged to have been committed by the husband at the parental home where the wife had taken shelter?” While answering this question the Apex Court observed that mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or by any other abusive and degrading or disgracing language would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any noticeable or unconcealed act of physical cruelty at such place. Thus, it was held that the courts which are situated at the place where the wife resides after leaving the matrimonial house due to cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives would have jurisdiction to entertain and accept the complaint alleging the commission of the offences under section 498A of the IPC. Rajesh Sharma vs The State of Uttar Pradesh A two-judge bench comprising of Justice AK Goel and UU Lalit held that section 498A was inserted in the statute with an excellent object of punishing the cruel behavior of a husband and his relatives towards a wife and especially when such a cruel act would lead to abetting the suicide of the wife or her murder. The bench had further issued other guidelines with regards to section 498A which are as follows: Complaints under section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. The concerned designated officer will be required to undergo training for such period as specified. The training period should be completed within four months from the date of order and such officer should be appointed within one from the date of the order. In situations where settlement is reached, the District and Sessions Judge or any other Senior Judicial officer nominated by him the concerned District will be allowed to dispose of the proceedings including closing the case if the dispute is primarily of matrimonial discord. It furthers states that in cases where the persons are ordinarily residing out of India then in such situations impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner notice should not be a routine. If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor, the same shall be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, the requirement of further arrest/custody and interest of Justice must be carefully weighed. Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court needs to grant exemption from the personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting the progress of the trial. Mohammad Miyan vs The State of Uttar Pradesh The court stated that if the complaints with regards to section 498A and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are filed long after divorce the same would not be maintainable. In this case, the FIR under the above-mentioned section was filed four years after getting divorced. Jagdishraj Khatta vs The State of Himachal Pradesh The Apex Court stated that the activities that had occurred between the husband and the wife much before the latter’s death cannot be treated as the conduct which drove the wife to commit suicide and thus the husband cannot be charged with abetment to suicide. The bench further clarified that the alleged cruel behavior of the husband had taken place much before the commission of the suicide and thus there was no immediate cause which could provoke the wife to end her life.