Published on 19th April 2025
Authored By: Aishwarya Uniyal
UPES
INTRODUCTION
Supreme Court and High Courts are constitutional courts and not mere criminal courts except in certain exceptional cases.
The Supreme Court through its landmark judgments have served as a guardian for protection of fundamental rights of the individuals in order to prevent arbitrary arrest by the police following the principle of natural justice (stare decisis) for setting up a legal precedent.
FACTS
Arnesh Kumar and his wife Sweta Kiran were husband and wife living in a sour marriage.
The wife alleged that both of her in laws demanded a dowry of Rupees 8 lakh, a Maruti car, an air conditioner, a television set, etc from her. She brought this fact to the notice of her husband but he supported his parents and threatened her that he would marry any other women.
She also alleged that she was deprived of her matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
The police registered the FIR against the Petitioner against Section 498A of IPC (The Indian Penal Code) and Section 4 of DPA (The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961).
Denying all these allegations by the respondent, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which was denied by the Sessions Judge and also by Patna High Court later on.
The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave Petition.
ISSUES
- Can arrest be made under Section 498A without proper investigation?
- Are the rights of accused with respect to violation of personal liberty of the individual?
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner was granted provisional bail by the Apex Court after observing that the
provisions under section 498A of IPC are used as weapons rather than shield by some wives, which brings humiliation to the lives of the husbands for the law makes the offence non-bailable and cognizable. The court highlighted that the directions must be applied to other offenses as well that are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. These guidelines instruct the state government to direct the police not to arrest individuals automatically under section 498A of IPC without considering section 41 of CrPC.
If no arrest is made, the decision must be reported to the Magistrate within two weeks of the case’s institution, with extensions allowed if district’s Superintendent of Police gives written reasons. The accused should be given a notice to appear under Section 41-A of the CrPC within two weeks. If needed, this time can be extended, but only if the Superintendent of Police provides a written explanation. If police officers fail to follow these guidelines, they could face disciplinary action and may even be charged with contempt of court. Magistrates who approve detention without properly recording their reasons may face disciplinary action from the relevant High Court as well. The Supreme Court of India has carefully crafted its decision to safeguard the rights of the accused, ensuring that due process is followed, while also maintaining strong protections for women against abuse. This balanced approach not only shields women from harm but also prevents the misuse of legal provisions, aiming for fairness and justice for all parties involved.
REFERENCES
- Criminal Procedure by Kelkar
- SCC Online
