Delhi High Court: Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 04-10-2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (‘Sessions Court’). Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, observed that what primarily weighed in the mind of the Sessions Court while discharging the the husband and her in-laws (‘respondents’) was that since the wife was working as a police officer in Delhi Police, the offence in question could not have been committed against her. The Court opined that this finding was perverse and not based on the principles of criminal jurisprudence and fair trial, but based on an unjustified perception and bias that a person who was working as a police officer could never be a victim of domestic violence. The Court opined that the assumption that the wife being a police officer must had inherently possessed knowledge of law for her own protection was not only flawed but also against the fundamental principles of justice.
The Court opined that a perusal of the record revealed that there were specific allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty and torture due to bringing insufficient dowry with specific dates in the complaint which had not been discussed by the Sessions Court to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, the Court opined that there was no infirmity with the order dated 04-06-2006 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘the Magistrate’) insofar as it framed charges against the respondents under Sections 498-A and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment dated 04-10-2008.
Background
Petitioner-wife alleged that on 28-02-1998, she was married to Respondent 2-husband as per Buddhist rites and ceremonies, and her parents arranged the marriage as per best of their financial abilities and provided dowry in marriage. At that time, both the husband and wife were working in Delhi Police, as Sub-Inspectors. Soon after their marriage, husband’s family started taunting and teasing the wife for bringing in insufficient dowry. It was alleged that a specific demand of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a car and a separate house was raised by the respondents. The failure on the wife’s father part to fulfil these demands had resulted in torture and physical injuries being inflicted upon her.
On 04-09-1999, husband allegedly took out a dagger and threatened the wife that he would kill her in case she failed to meet their demands. Since the wife was unable to fulfil the demands, she was allegedly beaten and thrown out of her matrimonial home on 08-09-1999. On the same day, wife filed a complaint mentioning the incidents of cruelty, but still the cruelty against her continued. In April 2000, the wife gave birth to a daughter and was in dire need of her belongings, but the husband did not return any of her belongings, causing hardship to her. Subsequently, on 03-07-2002, wife filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC against the respondents with the Crime Against Women Cell (‘CAW Cell’). Thereafter, the FIR was registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the IPC.
The Magistrate passed the order dated 04-06-2006, whereby the charge under Section 406 of IPC was dropped against the respondents on the ground that nowhere in the complaint, it had been mentioned that the wife had demanded return of her articles. However, respondents were charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. Thus, respondents filed the revision petition before the Sessions Court, and vide judgment dated 04-10-2008, the Sessions Court held that the Magistrate took cognizance of a time barred case as the allegations of cruelty pertained to 1999 and the cognizance was taken on 27-04-2004, that is after expiry of three years of limitation period as prescribed under Section 468 CrPC and discharged the respondents for offence under Section 498A and 34 of the IPC.
Thus, wife filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court applied the principles laid down in Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, (2022) 13 SCC 128, for computing the period of limitation and noted that the present case was filed by the wife on 03-07-2002 with the CAW Cell, and the FIR was registered on 19-12-2002. Further, the wife left her matrimonial home on 08-09-1999. Thus, considering the date of commission of offence as 08-09-1999 and the date of filing of complaint as 03-07-2002, the Court opined that the complaint was filed by wife within a period of two years and ten months from the date of commission of alleged offence, which was within the period of limitation of three years. Further, the wife’s sufferings continued till the date of filing of complaint, and her belongings had not been returned by the respondents for two and a half years. Therefore, prima facie it appeared that there was no delay on the wife’s part, in filing the complaint for an offence under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was not barred under Section 468 of CrPC.
The Court further observed that what primarily weighed in the mind of the Sessions Court while discharging the respondents was that since the wife was working as a police officer in Delhi Police, the offence in question could not have been committed against her. The Court opined that this finding was perverse and not based on the principles of criminal jurisprudence and fair trial, but based on an unjustified perception and bias that a person who was working as a police officer could never be a victim of domestic violence. The Court opined that a woman or a man undergoing challenging situations in their personal lives might put up a brave front and continue to excel in their professional life, which should go to their credit. However, for a judge to adjudge a case, it would be the law on the issue which had to form the basis of arriving at a conclusion and not the possibilities, probabilities or perceptions and biases about a gender or a profession.
The Court opined that the present case of a female police officer deemed incapable of being victimized, solely due to her profession was an illustration of the insidious nature of our hidden biases. To harbour assumptions, especially as a judge, that a woman, by virtue of her profession as a police officer, could not possibly be a victim in her own personal or matrimonial life, was one of the highest kinds of perversity which could be seen in a judgment. Judicial decisions, premised on such assumptions, were examples of court’s refusal to recognize the complex realities of people’s lives, and defiance of law, logic and empathy.
The Court opined that in the present case, it was evident that the principles of natural justice and equality under the law were overlooked, and undue emphasis was laid on the gender and the professional background of the wife. The focus of the adjudicating authority, instead of on assessment of material before it, totally shifted to the profession of the wife. The Court opined that the assumption that the wife being a police officer must had inherently possessed knowledge of law for her own protection was not only flawed but also against the fundamental principles of justice.
The Court opined that “it should be the prime duty of the judicial academies to ensure that those who adorn the golden chairs of justice and are in command of the chariot of justice, should not see those who appear before them with spectacles and prisms of gender biasness but should at all times write their judgments wearing spectacles of gender neutrality, impartiality, equality and remaining aware of any hidden biases or perceptions one may hold as a judge.”
Further, the Court opined that a community would judge the judicial system through its decisions and judgments which were based on reasons. Therefore, in view of rapidly changing world, the Court requested the Delhi Judicial Academy to make issues such as gender equality, cultural diversity to be a part of the curriculum and continuous judicial education program conducted by the Academy. The Court opined that the judicial education in this regard would ensure that the judges would possess the knowledge, awareness, and empathy to adjudicate cases involving these complex and sensitive matters fairly and impartially. Further, this ongoing education and training would go a long way in changing the society’s stereotypical thinking, as it would result in better drafted judgments. Such training would also foster a deeper understanding of different perspectives and experiences and would help judges make more informed and equitable decisions, thereby enhancing public trust and confidence in the legal system.
The Court opined that a perusal of the record revealed that there were specific allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty and torture due to bringing insufficient dowry with specific dates in the complaint which had not been discussed by the Sessions Court to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, the Court opined that there was no infirmity with the order dated 04-06-2006 passed by the Magistrate insofar as it framed charges against the respondents under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment dated 04-10-2008.
[Sanghmitra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2980, decided on 01-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Divjot Singh Bhatia, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Saurabh, P.S. Malviya Nagar; Gautam Das, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
