DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

BASICS OF CASE LAW

FINAL DRAFT

RAJESH SHARMA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Lavanya Awasthi Dr Ankita Yadav

BA.LL.B. (Hons.) Assistant Professor (Law)

1st Semester (Sec B) Dr Ram Manohar Lohia

Enrolment No: 220101098 National Law University,

Lucknow
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my professor Dr Ankita Yadav for guiding and helping me finish

my term paper on the topic of "Case Analysis: Rajesh Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh" on

occasion of its successful completion. She enabled me to finish the paper on time with

extraordinary excellence, and without him I wouldn't have been able to. Taking advantage of

this opportunity, I would also want to express my gratitude to my seniors, friends, and family

members who have supported me in the duration of this project. My sincere thanks also goes

out to the members of RMLNLU family, for the continual stream of support and

encouragement throughout this endeavour.

-Lavanya Awasthi
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this term paper on the topic “Case Analysis: Rajesh Sharma vs State of

Uttar Pradesh”, which I submitted to Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,

Lucknow in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of B.A.L.L.B(Hons.),

is a record of legitimate project work conducted by me under the supervision of Dr Shashank

Shekhar. Additionally, I declare that the work described in this project has not been submitted,

in part or in whole, for the granting of any other degree or certificate at this institution or at any

other university.

-Lavanya Awasthi
TITLE OF THE CASE:

Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

CITATION:

2017 SCC 821

BENCH STRENGTH:

Division bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K Goel and Mr. Justice U.U. Lalit.

AREA OF LAW:

Criminal law

RELEVANT SECTIONS:

Section 498A and Section 323 of Indian Penal Code ,1980, Sections of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 41A of Criminal Procedural Code.

AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K Goel

RATIO:

Unanimous Judgement

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the provision of Section 498A of IPC were grossly

misused. In the present case, the Supreme Court has given the direction of the offences which

is related to the offence of dowry and provided in this judgement that the harassment or

victimization of the husband and the married man should be stopped.

“The husband and his family members may have differences of opinion in the dispute, for

which, arrest and judicial remand are not the answer. The ultimate object of every legal

system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.”

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this instant case, the proceedings were initiated when the respondent 2, Sneha Sharma, filed

a complaint. On November 28, 2012, she and her husband, Rajesh sharma, here appellant 1,

got married. Her father provided dowry to the best of his ability, but her husband and his family

were dissatisfied with the amount they received. They began assaulting and tormenting her as

a result, as alleged by the complainant. They also demanded a dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and a

car, both of which were beyond her family’s means. The complainant was dropped off at her

matrimonial residence by appellant No. 1 on November 10, 2013. She was pregnant at the time

and had discomfort as a result of her pregnancy, which was terminated. Furthermore, as she

indicated, her ‘stridhan’ was preserved. He requested 50,000 and a gold necklace after retaining
‘stridhan’. He tortured his wife as a result of his displeasure of not obtaining the specified

demand. The court summoned him under Sections 498A and 323 IPC based on this memo.

He was declared accountable and found guilty under section 498A, according to the session

court. The court admitted Sneha’s plea to summon rest of the accused Vijay Sharma, Jaywati

Sharma, Praveen Sharma and Priyanka Sharma i.e. her parents in law and the brother and sister

of the husband. The appellant then appealed the summons order to the High Court under

Section 482 CrPC. Despite the fact that it was sent to mediation, no conclusions were reached.

The high court found no cause to intervene with his family’s summons, and the appellants’ plea

was dismissed and the issue was sent to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

 Whether the family of Rajesh Sharma should be held liable along with him under

section 498A?

 Is there a practice of including all family members in resolving a marriage

dispute?

 How were the provisions of Section 498A mismanaged and misinterpreted in

order to incriminate innocent people?

 And lastly, what are some feasible solutions to the potential of misconception of

this section?
CONTENTION:

The counsel asserted that there is a rising trend to utilise the provision to ensnare all family,

including elderly parents, small children, siblings, grandparents, and uncles, based on

imprecise and exaggerated charges without any verifiable proof of bodily or mental harm or

impairment. The following data from the Crime Records Bureau (CRB)was cited: According

to National Crime Reports, this is the case. In 2005, the Record Bureau handled 58,319 cases.

A total of 1,27,560 people were reported under Section 498A of the IPC. There were 6,141

arrests and charges filed. Because of a factual or legal error, it has been deemed false. By

referring to various case laws, it was argued that the clause was being abused judicially,

recognised, and there is a need to take steps to address it. This type of abuse should be

avoided. A learned ASG proposed that a preliminary investigation be conducted along the

lines of the findings in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh 1. Only with the

authorization of the concerned Magistrate might a relative other than the spouse be arrested.

Relatives beyond the age of 70 should not be detained. The police’s ability to make

immediate arrests must be limited. The court must determine that there is prima facie

evidence that the accused has committed an overt and covert conduct before giving

authorization. Shri V. Giri, distinguished senior counsel, argued that an arrest for a Section

498A offence should only be made when the Superintendent of Police has given his

unequivocal assent. In the case of relatives who live outside India, the matter should only be

pursued if the IO is confident that arrest is required for a fair inquiry. The impounding of a

passport or the issue of a red corner notice should be avoided in such instances. Counselling

should be made a required procedure under Section 14 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before a case under Section 498A is filed.

1
(2008) 7 SCC 164
JUDGEMENT:

After analysing the history of the problem and taking into consideration the Law Commission’s

243rd Report as well as previous decisions of this Court, the court declared that violations of

innocent people’s human rights cannot be overlooked. This Court has addressed several

safeguards against unjustified arrests or insensitive investigations. Even then, the issue persists

to a large extent. Apart from sensitising the investigative officials and the concerned trial

courts, they were of the opinion that involving civil society in the administration of justice may

be one of the approaches. It is also vital to make it easier to conclude proceedings where a true

settlement has been reached, rather than requiring parties to go to the High Court only for that

purpose.

The court established a committee called the family welfare committee in every district that

would hear all dowry cases, giving this body unchecked authority and the ability to act as a

justice dispensation system. Every complaint received by the police or the Magistrate under

Section 498A must be referred to and investigated by this committee. No arrests will be made

unless the committee submits a report to the magistrate indicating that the victim’s justice

would be delayed. Members of a committee that acts as a judicial body can be bought and

swayed by the accused.

The court also stated that only an authorised Investigating Officer of the region may examine

complaints under Section 498A and any related offences. If a bail application is submitted with

at least one clear reason, it will be granted. The Public Prosecutor/complainant is given a day’s

notice. As far as feasible, the same can be decided on the same day. Further elaborating they

emphasized that it may not be necessary for all family members, especially those who live far

away, to appear themselves before the court. After observing the aforementioned arrangement

for six months, but no later than March 31, 2018, the National Legal Services Authority may
provide a report on the necessity for any changes or further directives.

DISCUSSION OF DECISION:

The declining acknowledgement and judicial acknowledgment of women’s rights is a

fundamental concern in our legal system. The case of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

demonstrates how women’s rights in Indian society are far from being achieved. The decision

itself exemplifies the male-dominated Indian court, which forces women to battle for their

rights. The Indian court has to be feminised, and men and women’s rights must be protected

equally. Rather than addressing the threat of dowry, the court has exacerbated the problem.

Women who speak out against such abuse and protest will be afraid to do so for fear of being

kicked out of their homes or being labelled as a “disgruntled” wife by the courts. As a result,

the courts should re-examine the effect and purpose of legislation and take appropriate action.

The judge, instead of looking at the ground truth of the law, has relied on data to reach his

determination, which is a really dismal truth in this case that everyone is talking about. The

judges refused to admit even once that the law has decreased physical violence and dowry-

related offences to a significant level. The judges did not consider the implications of a diluted

dowry regimen.

The Supreme Court judgment of the case of Rajesh Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh comes

out with judges prescribing some measures to curb the misuse of the Sec 498A. The judgment

after its pronouncement has been the point of criticism from various feminist NGOs and women

social activists. The issue, in this case, was whether the family of the accused be also detained

in the act and how to save the innocents. Granting of leave to appellant was not an issue but

the reasoning given was flawed to some extent.

ANALYSIS:

Certain flaws were encountered in the judgement which are as follows:

 Reflection of patriarchy and male values

o The very depressing fact in this case which everyone talks about is the
judge instead of looking the ground reality of the law has taken the
support of the data to come to his conclusion.
o The judges did not concede even once that the law up to substantial extent
has reduced the physical violence and dowry-related crimes
o The judges did not consider what the implication of a diluted dowry law
are. This belief fuels from a patriarchal society which upholds men
supremacy and power with pride.

 Feminist perspective: How women rationale is subjected inferior to men.

o Feminists will criticise this judgment that it shows how male values are
deeply entrenched in our society that still reflects in its every aspect.
o The judgment also talks about how women file the complaint on the
trivial issue and lack the ability to foresee the consequences of that act,
shows that women rationality, reasonableness, and other ability are
considered to be less than that of men.
o Any woman who tries to protect her rights and fight for her rights is being
named as ‘disgruntled’ by the court which goes to show that anything
which is different from the ‘malestream’ thinking will be termed as
deviant conduct.
o The court also says that family in Indian society is far more important for
peace and harmony in society and that implies that a wife and her roles
are stated as per male understanding of the word ‘wife’.
o Women are supposed to work for the unity of a family and have to
comply with whatever her husband says. That’s the word ‘wife’ deprives
women of her natural rights which are pre-existing and every human
being is entitled to it.
o The fact judges show in judgment that 30 percent of accused in the cases
are mother or sister of husband shows that how women rationality and
thinking has also been strongly influenced by the male perspective and
they have kind of internalized the dominant male views.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCLUSION:

This was a historic case because it not only acknowledged but also tried to establish a system

of checks and balances when it came to criminal laws that were being abused by women. A

recent case of social action forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, however, overturned

the guidelines for the Family Welfare Committee. Despite the fact that the verdict in Rajesh

Sharma’s case had no effect, it was nonetheless a paradigm change in the courts’ attitude and

discussion. The verdict has prompted the creation of a blueprint for preventative measures that

may be debated and investigated by parliament in order to curb dowry law abuse.

Other than that,what was required for judges, in this case, was to look at more than one source

for their reasoning and a positivistic approach was needed in the judgment. Because now the

form of the law is diluted it hardly serves the purpose. The struggle and fight of many women

activist behind this law are forgotten in favouring male values. The court needed to re-examine

the effect and purpose of the law and then judge the case in light of both and relation to each

other.

The major problem our judicial system has, is the falling acknowledge and judicial recognition

of rights of women. Rajesh Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh judgment reflects how justice for

women in Indian society is far from realized. The judgment in itself presents the male-centric

Indian judiciary which makes women fight hard for their rights. Indian judiciary needs

feminization and it needs to protect rights of men and women equally. Instead of taking

measure to curb the menace of dowry, judgment has made the situation even worse. Women

who raise voice against such violence and protest will fear to protest as they will be either

thrown out of their home. Thus, the effect and purpose of law should be rechecked by the

judiciary and it should do the needful.