Case title:
Rajesh Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Order:
27th July 2017
Bench:
Justice A K Goel
Parties:
Petitioner: Rajesh Sharma
Defendant: The State Of Uttar Pradesh
Facts:
- On November 28, 2012, Rajesh Sharma and Sneha Sharma were united in marriage, and the appellant received the whole amount of dowry from Sneha Sharma's father.
- However, the appellants were not pleased with the dowry amount, so they started mistreating the complainant, who was often assaulted and taken advantage of by the husband.
- After terminating the plaintiff Sneha's pregnancy, the appellant left her at home. She then called Rajesh Sharma in pursuant to IPC sections 498A and 323.
Issue Raised:
- In this case, the question was whether the accused's family should also be detained in connection with the crime and how to protect the innocents.
Argument:
- The case resulted from an appeal against the summons order that the Additional Sessions Judge had issued to the complainant's husband's family members. The Court did not provide any guidelines for contesting summons in these situations, instead shifting the focus to broad directives to prevent the "misuse" of S. 498-A.
- Even so, there are numerous (empirical, logical, and legal) errors in the guidelines' substance that affect the Court's decision. It instructed the formation of three-member District Family Welfare Committees made up of retired individuals, social workers, volunteer paralegals, and wives of elected officials.
- Any complaint under S. 498-A must be referred to this Committee by the Magistrate or the police, and after sufficient personal contact with all parties, this Committee must provide a report outlining the facts and its opinion to the referring body within a month. No arrest should typically be made before this report is received and the referring authority has had a chance to consider it.
- In situations where a settlement is reached between parties, the guidelines permit any senior judicial officer to dismiss the criminal proceedings. Last but not least, none of these rules apply in situations involving actual physical harm or death.
- The Court justified these orders by highlighting the pervasive propensity for abuse of the clause "on the strength of vague and exaggerated allegations, without there being any verifiable evidence of physical or mental harm" which makes it impossible for the parties to come to an amicable agreement. It cited Crime Records Bureau statistics showing the number of S. 498-A cases deemed "false" due to factual or legal error, as well as discrepancies in the rates of chargesheet filing and conviction – all of which seemed to suggest towards a widespread abuse of S. 498-A.
- The Court appears to have tacitly followed the reasoning of that Court by citing decisions like Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand. In that case, the court emphasised the necessity for reconciliation as well as the "common knowledge" that such cases are frequently the consequence of false complaints while quashing the proceedings due to a lack of proof. The judgement also makes reference to decisions made by the Delhi High Court in Chander Bhan v. State and the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, both of which established some rules to prevent what was deemed to be an abuse of S. 498-A.
Judgment:
- Rajesh Sharma was found guilty under section 498A by the session court. Later, however, Sneha called the husband's brother and sister in addition to her in-laws. On July 3, 2014, session judge Jaunpur approved the petition.
- The appellant then petitioned the High Court to overturn the summoning order. Even though the dispute was sent to a mediation centre, it was ineffective. The petition was then dismissed by the High Court because there was no evidence to sustain it.
- In this case, the main problem was to stop the persistent propensity to involve the entire family in the crime.
- The petition stated that Sneha Sharma had left her marital home on her own, that her mother-in-law was a housewife, that her father-in-law was a retired government employee, and that both her sister-in-law and brother-in-law were unmarried government employees who had no desire to demand dowry from Sneha.
- The appellant then went to the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected his or her case.
Analysis:
- India has a very patriarchal culture due to its religious and cultural background. We have adhered to the social convention that women are seen as inferior to males in all facets of life for generations.
- Every dowry-related case will be sent to the committee that the court established, giving it unchecked authority and the potential to serve as a system for dispensing justice.
- Awaiting the committee's report to the magistrate that demonstrates how the victim's justice would be delayed, no arrests will be made.
- Committee members who serve as a judicial body are susceptible to pressure and bribery from defendants.
- Nothing other than the judge's background informs the judge's discretion, and the judgement reflects that background.
- The precedent that courts rely on also shows their male-predominant viewpoint, as the majority of the cases they cite support the notion that 498A is being abused.
Conclusion:
The primary issue with our legal system is the lack of judicial support for women's rights. The ruling in Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh shows how far Indian society still has to go before achieving justice for women. The judgement itself illustrates how the Indian judiciary is dominated by men, which forces women to struggle tenaciously for their rights. The Indian judicial system needs to be more female and should equally safeguard the rights of men and women. Judgement has worsened the situation rather than taking action to stop the threat of dowry. Women who speak out against this violence and protest will be afraid to do so for fear of being expelled from their homes or being labelled as "disgruntled" wives by the legal system. The judiciary should therefore conduct a thorough review of the impact and intent of the statute and take appropriate action.
