The Bombay High Court recently clarified that it cannot issue directives to make Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes cruelty towards a wife by her husband or his relatives, a compoundable offence. The court stated that such a matter falls within the legislative domain.
The division bench, consisting of Justices AS Gadkari and SG Dige, was hearing a writ petition filed by three family members seeking to quash proceedings under Section 498A. The bench noted that the Central government had submitted an affidavit stating that making Section 498A a compoundable offence could negatively impact women’s interests.
“We have read the affidavit of the Union government. We cannot direct them to legislate,” the Court stated unequivocally. However, the bench added that it does possess the authority to quash cases where parties consent to the same.
The bench observed;
“In our experience, we have seen that out of 10 matters, if all are sent to mediation, 8 matters are worked out and 2 matters may have some problem. But their stand is clear,”
The case was initially heard by a bench led by Justice Revati Mohite Dere, which quashed the FIR against the three family members and recommended that the Central government consider making the offence under Section 498A compoundable. The bench also noted that the State of Andhra Pradesh had made Section 498A compoundable as early as 2003, and called for a response from the Union government.
In its reply affidavit, the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development stated that all matrimonial disputes under Section 498A of the IPC are registered only after a preliminary enquiry is conducted by the police. If the mediation cell fails to reach a compromise between parties after the enquiry, only then is an FIR lodged. The Ministry also referred to a Law Commission report which recorded that it did not have any reliable data based on empirical study regarding the alleged misuse of Section 498A.
The case was later reassigned to the current bench. The bench has now granted the petitioners two weeks to submit their suggestions to the Additional Solicitor General, who will then discuss it with the government authorities. The case will be heard thereafter.