Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and Anr.(2014)8 SCC 273
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above-mentioned case imposed certain checks and balances on the power of police to arrest an accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noticed the misuse of the 498A complaints by the women to exact revenge on her husband and in-laws.
In the present case, the Respondent-Wife alleged that her husband and her in-laws had made unlawful demands of dowry from her and when she was unable to fulfil the said demands, the Respondent-Wife was thrown out of her matrimonial home. The Petitioner-Husband was arrested on account of the 498A complaint made by the Respondent-Wife without a warrant. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner-Husband applied for anticipatory bail which failed. Therefore, by special leave petition, the Petitioner-Husband approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court for relief.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the fact that Section 498A, of the Indian Penal Code, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, is often used as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The law and precedent that was set out to protect the tormented women of the country is now being utilised to settle scores and exact revenge. The said complaints are now resulting in harassment to the husband and his relatives by getting them arrested under this Section. It is grossly more disturbing to see bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers being arrested without a prima facie case.
The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain guidelines which the police officer must follow while arresting under Section 498A, IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It observed that an arrest must be based on a reasonable satisfaction with respect to genuineness of the allegation. It further directed the Magistrates as well to be careful enough not to authorise detention casually and mechanically.
Pooran Singh vs State of Delhi in Bail Appln. 2029/2018
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a significant judgement firmly and straightforwardly established that just because stridhan has been recovered from the in-laws house, the same cannot be grounds enough to make an arrest.
The Complainant-Wife had made a complaint of physical, mental and verbal abuse and unlawful custody of stridhan by the husband, sister-in-laws and the mother-in-law. The Complainant-Wife filed her complaint stating that the Petitioner-Husband and her in-laws had threatened her to complete their unlawful demands of dowry if she wanted a peaceful stay in the matrimonial home. The Complainant-Wife had further accused her husband of snatching her stridhan and forcefully giving it to his mother.
The Petitioner-Husband was arrested and filed for bail. The Petitioner-Husband’s bail was rejected on the said grounds, “Since, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to recover the dowry articles and stridhan and the complainant is receiving the threat constantly on whatsapp from the applicant. I find no grounds to admit the accused on bail, at this stage.”
Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner-Husband filed for a bail application before the Delhi High Court.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad through his judgement made it crystal clear that the mere recovery of stridhan can’t be sole ground for arresting a person for offences under Section 498A and 406 of IPC. While the police are empowered under CrPC to conduct searches of premises of the accused, they cannot make an arrest on the sole ground that the stridhan was present in the house. It was observed that there must be compelling ground for arresting the accused person for offences under Section 498A and 406 of IPC and not otherwise.
“The Petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. The perusal of the status report shows that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is being sought only for recovery of stridhan. The recovery of stridhan alone cannot be a reason to deny anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The police are vested with sufficient powers under the Cr.P.C to conduct searches of premises. Further, the material on record shows that there are cross-complaints. The petitioner had filed a complaint in 2018 stating that the complainant’s father is threatening him. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner and his family are in such a position that they would be able to threaten the witnesses. It is trite law that the Police Officer before arresting the accused who is accused of offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent a person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him by disclosing such facts to the Courts or the Police Officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. As Stated earlier, the mere fact that the recovery of Stridhan cannot be the sole ground for arresting a person for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.”
Observing the same, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to grant a bail to the Petitioner-Husband with certain directions to the parties.
Mitali Tyagi vs Tushar Tyagi, Delhi High Court MAT.APP.(F.C.) 25/2022 CM APPL.11160/2022
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case waived off the six months cooling period in a mutual consent divorce petition.
In the present case, the parties got married in 2016 and have no child born from the said marriage. Due to disputes between the parties, both the husband and the wife decided to part ways through divorce by mutual consent. It was the submission of the parties that all efforts of reconciliation and resolution of the differences by them, their family members and well-wishers had failed at all stages.
Having no other recourse left the couple decided to mutually get a divorce. The advocates for both the parties submitted to the Hon’ble Court that no further claims were left, and the required due compliance of the consent terms had already been done. Hence, prolonging their already dead marriage for the mandate of six months will only cause further agony to them.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to observe that the parties are at an age where they may start a new life if given a chance. However, keeping them tied to a legal bond would only mean snatching away from them the opportunity ever to lead a fulfilling life.
Observing the same, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, was pleased to waive off the mandate of six months cooling off period in the mutual consent divorce.