No Arrest for 2 months in 498A IPC or 85 BNS. Is it enforced?

No Arrest for 2 months in 498A IPC or 85 BNS. Is it binding on all the states?

Recent judgement made by the Supreme Court while disposing all the cases between the couple who has not left any stone unturned to take the fight to the hilt, upheld the directions given by the Allahabad High Court to constitute and establish Family Welfare Committees and make them operational within a period of next three months positively.

What did the Allahabad High Court order say?

In the case of Mukesh Bansal v State of UP and Anr on 13 June 2022 recommended that the Family Welfare Committees be constituted in the State. The Honourable Court referred to the directions sought in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443. The observation made here is that it is a known fact that Section 498A of IPC and its allied sections are mercilessly used by the advocates to serve the objective of their client and that is why after exaggerating the incident manyfold, tailored an imaginary and abhorrent story. 

The court while emphasising the good intention of insertion of 498A into the Statute Book in the year 1983 stated the Object and Reasons of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment Act, 1983)

“Increasing graph of dowry death is a matter of serious concern. The extent of effort has been commented on by the Joint Committee of the House constituted to examine the working of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The cases of cruelty by the husband and other relatives which culminated in the society or murder, hapless women concerned constitute only a small fraction of cases involving the cruelty. It is therefore proposed to amend the IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with the cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by her in-laws”.

The Honourable Court further added that since its introduction, Section 498A IPC has increasingly been vilified and associated with the perception and its misuse by the women who frequently used it as a weapon against her in-laws. Yet, there is no concrete data to indicate how frequently the provision has been misused. With this scenario, misuse itself cannot be ground to repeal the provision or take away its teeth. 

The Court has proposed safeguards after assessing the totality of circumstances, object and allegation of misuse of Section 498A IPC, taking the guidance from the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443 keeping  in view the growing tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a general and sweeping allegations.

“[35] Thus, It is directed that :-

(i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately referred to the Family Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as FWC) in each district.

(ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section 498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years.

(iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to the Family Welfare Committee in each district.

(iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the geographical size and population of that district constituted under the District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising at least THREE MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District, who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at the Legal Service Authority.

(v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members :-

(a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR;

(b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean antecedent, OR;

(c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time for the object of the proceeding OR;

(d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district.

(vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness.

(vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to the Family Welfare Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two months from its lodging.

The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation between them with the aid of members of the Committee.

(viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorities to whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter.

(ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the statements of witnesses.

(x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months.

(xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee from time to time(not more than one week).

(xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos of the contesting parties are very high that they would mellow down the heat between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding between them. Since, this is a job for the public at large, social work, they are acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honorarium as fixed by the District & Sessions Judge of every district.

(xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be investigated by dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonial cases with utmost sincerity and transparency.

(xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case.

At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that after lodging of the F.I.R. or the complaint case without exhausting the “Cooling-Period” of two months, no arrest or any coercive action shall be taken against the husband or his family members in order to derail the proceedings before the Family Welfare Committee.

[38] Let a copy of this order be circulated by the Registrar General of this High Court for wide circulation to all the concerned, the Director General of Police, U.P.; Chief Secretary, Govt. Of U.P.; Principal Secretary (Law), Govt. Of U.P. and all the District & Sessions Judges to constitute and establish Family Welfare Committees and make them operational within a period of next three months positively. A circular to this effect may be issued by all the concerned authorities attaching utmost sincerity and frame rules for the said purpose within a period of next two months positively.”

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443

The petitioners averred that hundreds of women are being subjected to horrific acts of violence often in the guise of domestic abuse or to extract more money from the girl’s natal family due to absence of any uniform system of monitoring and systematic review of incidents of violence against married women which has led to dilution of the legislative intent behind Section 498-A IPC. And, in the wake of ever increasing crimes leading to unnatural deaths of women in marital homes, any dilution of Section 498-A IPC is not warranted. 

Further the petitioners also added that the social purpose of the statutory provision is being lost as the rigour of the 498A IPC has been diluted by making the offence practically bailable by reason of various qualifications and restrictions prescribed by various court decisions. The police are hesitant to arrest the accused owing to various judgements even though the statutory provision under CrPC 41 has sufficient checks and balances to prevent arbitrary and police mandated to record reasons for effecting arrest as well as for not arresting. 

As per the petitioners there is lack of monitoring mechanism to track cases registered under Section 498-A IPC including systematic study of the reason of low convictions and due to this absence, penal laws have not been able to secure a safe married environment to women. This, as per the petitioners, has also resulted in rise in cases under Section 498-A IPC because the deterrent effect of the said provision is getting diluted. It is also the case of the petitioners that investigation by the police of offence under Section 498-A IPC is often unprofessional and callous and the investigating officers perceptibly get influenced by both the parties which results in perpetrators escaping conviction.

The petitioners further contended that in many cases under Section 498-A, IPC the Court has not considered mental cruelty caused to the woman but has concentrated only on any sign of physical cruelty due to which the courts do not look into a case if the evidence does not show that the woman was physically harassed. This has led the courts to brand the woman on many occasions as hyper-sensitive or of low tolerance level.

Petitioners further averred that the alleged abuse of the penal provision is mostly by well-educated women who know that the offence is both cognizable and non-bailable and impromptu works on the complaint of the woman by placing the man behind the bars, but this cannot be a ground for denying the poor and illiterate women the protection that is offered by Section 498-A IPC against cruelty, rather there is a need to create awareness specifically in the rural areas about the laws for protection of women and consequent available remedies in case of breach.

It is also set forth in the petition that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 being passed, the irony still survives perhaps with more oxygen, for the social evil of dowry is on the increase and is openly practised with pride. It is put forth that women today are still tortured and often the court, despite being the ultimate saviour, does not come to the rescue of these women as a consequence of which an atmosphere of ambivalence prevails and such societal ambivalence creates a situation of war between two classes though in actuality the offence is relatable to individuals. A sorry state of affairs is pronouncedly asserted. 

Hence, petitioned to implement the guidelines recommended in Rajesh Sharma and ors v State of UP and Anr AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 case which was pronounced during the pendency of the petition. 

Rajesh Sharma and ors v State of UP and Anr AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 

Considering the background of the issue at hand and also taken into account the 243rd Report of the Law Commission dated 30th August, 2012, 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions (September, 2011), earlier decisions of the Apex Court, being conscious of object for which the provision was brought into the statute and considering all the safeguards put forth by the Apex Court against arbitrary arrests or insensitive investigation has given certain directions. 

“19 i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority. 

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing. 

(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses. 

(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such a committee. Such a committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication. 

(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint. 

(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. 

(g) Till the report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. 

(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. 

(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time. 

(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable. 

(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper. 

ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officers may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today; 

iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord;

iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;

v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; 

vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and 

vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. 

viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.”

Are these directions implemented?

The directions recommended in the Rajesh Sharma and ors v State of UP and Anr AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 case had far stretched vision to address both the societal evil of Dowry Harassment and false allegations to gain upper hand in cases of marital discord. In the Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443 case the Supreme Court could not uphold all the directions citing the following reasons;

1. In Rajesh Sharma and ors v State of UP and Anr AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 judgement the Court has directed constitution of the Family Welfare Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed the duties of the Committees. The prescription of duties of the Committees and further action are found to be beyond the Code and the same does not really flow from any provision of the Code. The Apex Court emphasised that the legislature in its wisdom has made the offence under Section 498-A IPC cognizable and non-bailable. The court also pointed out that the fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind. Also asserted that the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Anr (2014) 8 SCC 273 are in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 CrPC and Section 41-A CrPC. Similarly, the guidelines stated in Joginder Kumar v State of UP & ors (1994) 4 SCC 260 and D.K. Basu v State of WB  (1997) 1 SCC 416 are within the framework of the Code and the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency.
2. The Supreme Court also noted that in Rajesh Sharma and ors v State of UP and Anr AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 there is introduction of a third agency which has nothing to do with the Code and that apart, the Committees have been empowered to suggest a report failing which no arrest can be made. The directions to settle a case after it is registered is not a correct expression of law. A criminal proceeding which is not compoundable can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. When settlement takes place, then both the parties can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court, considering the bonafide of the petition, may quash the same. 

Hence directions contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole were found not to be in accord with the statutory framework and were found to be  impermissible.

3. The direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) to be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove. Whereas the precedents of the Apex Court have been made with the purpose that the investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest people at its whim and fancy. 

4. The Supreme Court modified the Direction No. 19(iii) to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303, shall dispose of the same.

5. As per the Apex Court the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and postulating that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail would stand on a different footing. They are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the Code. When an application for bail is entertained, proper conditions have to be imposed but recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground while rejecting an application for grant of bail under Section 498-A IPC. That cannot be considered at that stage. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not find anything erroneous in direction Nos. 19(iv) and (v). It further stated that so far as direction No. 19(vi) and 19(vii) are concerned, an application has to be filed either under Section 205 CrPC or Section 317CrPC depending upon the stage at which the exemption is sought.

Action taken by Legislature:

Subsequent to Rajesh Sharma judgement, the legislature did take steps to form Family Welfare Committees, which were later withdrawn post the judgement given in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443. 

Judgement in the Recent Case:

The judgement made on July 22, 2025 in 2025 INSC 883 the Supreme Court has again upheld the directions given by Allahabad High Court, bringing back the focus on the Family Welfare Committees. However, further directions are awaited as to whether these guidelines are applicable to pan India or are limited to the State of UP. Even if they are limited to UP, how can these directions be made as per the statutory provisions without deforming the existing structure of the Code is the 

Conclusion

False dowry harassment allegations are on the rise at the same time the social evil of giving and receiving dowry has also not stopped even after implementation of statutes and statutory provisions in criminal laws. When numerous men are affected by the false allegations, arbitrary arrests and harassment at different levels, there are also women in equal or more numbers who are suffering mentally, physically, and economically when demands of dowry are not met. Unfortunately we do not have the accurate numbers to weigh which one of them is to be given more attention. Among them there are men and their families who would brush all their evil deeds of demanding and harassing women for dowry under the carpet of ‘false allegations’. The concept of Family Welfare Committees seems to be an excellent solution on paper, however implementation of it if jeopardized, as in other provisions of the existing statues, would render useless and only ambiguity would rise as it is conflicting with certain provisions in the criminal law.