New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday did away with family welfare committees ordered to be set up last year to vet complaints of dowry cruelty and harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code often misused to harass innocent family members of husbands named in complaints.

Modifying the July 27 order passed by a two-judge Bench, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said such an order was “erroneous” and impermissible” as it went beyond the statutory framework.

Under the 2017 guidelines, every complaint under Section 498A was to be looked into by a family welfare committee which would interact with the parties personally or telephonically and give a report on factual aspect with its opinion within a month to the authority which referred the complaint to it.

No arrest was to be made unless and until the committee’s report was received and considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate “on its own merit.”

But the CJI’s Bench has now set aside this particular direction altogether, saying such directions “have the potential to enter into the legislative field.”

“The courts have ample power to grant pre-arrest bail or popularly called anticipatory bail and even to quash the criminal proceeding totally to stabilise the lawful balance because no court of law remotely conceives of a war between the two sexes.

“The courts remain constantly alive to the situation that though no war takes place, yet neither anger nor vendetta of the aggrieved section should take an advantage of the legal provision and harass the other side with influence or espousing the principle of sympathy,” said the CJI, writing the verdict for the Bench.

The Bench, however, expressed concern over the misuse of the law, saying, the abuse of the penal provision has vertically risen.

“The role of the law enforcing agency or the prosecuting agency is sometimes coloured with superlative empathy being totally oblivious of the sensation to make maladroit efforts to compete with the game of super sensitivity. Such a situation brings in a social disaster that has the potentiality to vertically divide the society,” it noted with concern.

To ensure that the law was not misused, the top court directed that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles laid down by it in various cases. It also directed the Director General 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.”

While modifying certain directions issued by a Bench headed by Justice AK Goel (since retired), the CJI’s Bench retained several other directions relating to bail, clubbing of cases and issuance of Red Corner Notice against relatives of the husband named in a dowry harassment complaint, saying they stood on a “different footing”.

It means the two-judge Bench’s earlier direction that if a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, it should be decided as far as possible on the same day remained untouched and effective.

The CJI’s Bench also chose not to disturb the 2017 direction that 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. It also retained the direction that for persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine.

On the 2017 direction that a District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge can 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 grant of exemption to family members living outstation, the Bench said an application has to be filed either under Section 205 CrPC or Section 317 CrPC depending upon the stage at which the exemption is sought.

Citing its verdict in Arnesh Kumar’s case , it sought to draw a distinction between the power to arrest and justification for the exercise of it and analysed Section 41 CrPC and Section 41A of CrPC.

The top court said, the directions to settle a case after it was registered was not a correct expression of law. “A criminal proceeding which is not compoundable can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. When settlement takes place, then both the parties can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court, considering the bona fide of the petition, may quash the same. The power rests with the High Court,” it noted while setting aside the direction to set up family welfare committees in each district.