SCrollsbackdowry law dilution, but notes misuse
498A Strikes down constituting family welfare committee to look into cases NEW DELHI:
Revisiting its earlier judgment that required a family welfare committee at the district level to examine dowry harassment complaints filed with the police before an arrest is made in such cases, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday said an introduction of an third agency was beyond the scope of the law.
Setting aside the direction to form a committee, the bench, headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, said, “The prescription of duties of the committees and further action thereof, as we find, are beyond the code and the same does not really flow from any provision of the code. There can be no denial that there has to be just, fair and reasonable working of a provision. The legislature in its wisdom has made the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cognisable and nonbailable. The fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind.”
A two-judge bench of justices AK Goel (since retired) and UU Lalit had on July 27, 2017, priate time.
Specific directions were issued to the police to abide by the top court’s earlier order, including the one by a Constitution Bench suggesting that a preliminary enquiry may be held in matrimonial/family disputes.
“It will also be appropriate to direct the director generals of police of each state to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by this court relating to arrest,” said the bench.
The SC favoured the view taken in the 2017 judgment with regards to expediting bail plea in such cases. “The directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and postulating that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail would stand on a different footing. They are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the code. When an application for bail is entertained, proper conditions have to be imposed but recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground while rejecting an appli-