Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanghmitra v. State held that since the petitioner is a Police officer, we cannot say that she cannot be intimidated, harassed, and dowry cannot be demanded by her husband and in laws.

What was the Background of Sanghmitra v. State case?

• The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband.
• The allegation leveled by the petitioner was that she got married to her husband according to Buddhist rites and ceremonies in the year 1998.
• Her parents had arranged the marriage according to the best of their financial abilities and had also given dowry.
• Both the petitioner and her husband were working in Delhi Police. Soon after the marriage, her husband, his parents and his sisters started taunting and teasing her for bringing insufficient dowry.
• Her husband used to ask her to give them more dowry and demanded Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a car and a separate house. The failure on the part of the petitioner’s father to fulfill the demands had resulted in torture and physical injuries being inflicted upon the petitioner.
• Since the petitioner was unable to fulfill the demands of her husband and in laws, she was allegedly beaten and thrown out of her matrimonial home on 8th September 1999.
• On the same day she lodged a complaint mentioning the incidents of cruelty.
• In April the petitioner had given birth to a daughter, and she was in dire need of her belongings, but her husband did not return her belongings. Eventually she lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Caw Cell, New Delhi. Based on complaint, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered 19^th December 2002.
• The chargesheet in this case was filed under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC against the accused persons (her husband and in laws).
• The Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi had passed the order on 4^th June 2006 and accused persons were charged under section 498A read with section 34 IPC. Here she dropped the charges under section 406 IPC.
• The accused persons had preferred a revision petition and the learned session court had discharged them.
• The present petition was filed by the petitioner to set aside the judgment passed by Additional Session Judge, Delhi.
• The impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court was set aside by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the complaint was filed by the petitioner within a period of 2 years and 10 months from the date of commission of offence, is within the period of limitation of 3 years as per Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Court also held a police officer can also be a victim of domestic violence and that courts should not be blinded by gender-based or stereotypical perceptions associated with any profession

What were the Landmark Judgments Cited in this case?

• Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that for the computation of period of limitation under section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the magistrate takes cognizance.
• Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007):
  • In this case, it was held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by court.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

Section 498A of IPC

• This Section deals with the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
• It states that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Section 468 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. It states that -

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be -

(a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence, which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.