Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017

 Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 - 


 On 27th July, 2017, in the case of Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2017], the question for consideration was whether any directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, IPC as acknowledged in certain studies and decisions.

While considering the background of the issue and taking into account the 243rd Report of the Law Commission dated 30th August, 2012, 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions (September, 2011) and earlier decisions, the Supreme Court said that though it was “conscious of the object for which the provision was brought into the statute”, at the same time, “violation of human rights of innocent cannot be brushed aside. Certain safeguards against uncalled for arrest or insensitive investigation have been addressed by this Court. Still, the problem continues to a great extent.”

“To remedy the situation”, the Court was of the view that involvement of civil society in the aid of administration of justice can be one of the steps, apart from the investigating officers and the concerned trial courts being sensitized” and that “it is also necessary to facilitate closure of proceedings where a genuine settlement has been reached instead of parties being required to move High Court only for that purpose.”

Accordingly, the following directions were given by the Court:-

“i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority. (b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing. (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses. (d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication. (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint. (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. (i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time. (j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable. (k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper. ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today; iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord; iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may 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, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.” It was further held that “after seeing the working of the above arrangement for six months but latest by March 31, 2018, National Legal Services Authority may give a report about need for any change in above directions or for any further directions. The matter may be listed for consideration by the Court in April, 2018.” 


Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर