Supreme Court dismisses plea that sought preliminary probe before FIR in dowry cases
The bench said IPC’s Section 498A was a salutary provision to protect women from cruelty inflicted on them by husband and in-laws on account of dowry
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition that wanted the police to conduct a preliminary probe before a first information report (FIR) was registered under the anti-dowry law to prevent its misuse, observing that the court could not give a blanket direction but could look at such instances on a case-to-case basis.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) was a salutary provision that sought to protect women from cruelty inflicted on them by husbands and in-laws on account of dowry. The provision was enacted to protect women from cruelty in marital homes.
“We see no reason to interfere with the legislative mandate of Section 498A of IPC... The allegation that the provision is being misused is evasive as no opinion can be formed while exercising writ jurisdiction,” the bench said.
The order was passed on a petition by non-profit organisation Janshruti which argued that legal protection should be available against false complaints filed under this provision. The petitioner sought directions from the court for mandatory preliminary enquiry before lodging of cases of cruelty and domestic violence in matrimonial homes and to fix timelines for deciding grant of maintenance.
The court said that the petitioner’s allegation that Section 498A was violative of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution was “wholly misconceived” as the Constitution’s Article 15 empowers the government to enact special laws for the protection of women and children.
According to Section 498A, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
“There might be cases where newly married women are victimised and there may be cases of misuse of law. Do you want us to strike down a law just because of some instances of misuse being reported in the media...Such an allegation can be examined on a case-to-case basis by the courts,” the bench said.
The court held that the directions sought by the petitioner amounted to amending legislation which does not fall within the ambit of courts. “These are salutary provisions enacted by Parliament for women empowerment and for protecting them from such unlawful practices in society. Article 15 empowers the Parliament to enact special laws for protection of women and children. You want us to now amend the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A by providing for a preliminary enquiry. It is the prerogative of lawmakers. Courts are only there to interpret laws,” the bench said.
On the petitioner’s submission that interim maintenance pleas be decided within 60 days, the bench said the suggestion was impractical.
“Have you undertaken a study on how many additional courts, judicial manpower and staff will be required? This is a matter to be dealt with by the high courts on their administrative side in consultation with states. This in turn depends on the financial capacity of states as some states can afford funds while some may not,” the bench said.
The petitioner had cited an increase in dowry cases being registered over the years and attributed a part of this to the misuse of the law.
But the bench said, “Don’t misuse this platform just because there are some instances of misuse.” Not supporting the idea that India should adopt practices in other countries, the bench remarked, “We should maintain our sovereignty. Other countries should follow us. Why should we follow other countries.”
To be sure, the top court has flagged misuse of Section 498A in several cases. In December, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh criticised misuse of the provision and expressed concern at exaggerated and unsubstantiated allegations featuring in complaints, leading to the unnecessary inclusion of distant relatives. It also advised caution in cases where the law is used as retaliation in “counterblast” by women, stressing that such tendencies defeat the purpose of the legislation.
In October last year, the top court had reiterated its concern as it referred to people who had minimal or no role in the alleged offences but were dragged into criminal trials, causing unnecessary hardship and reputational damage. “Courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons,” the court said.
