On dealing with false criminal cases

It is often alleged that false cases of cruelty are registered by the police at the behest of the estranged wife. Section 498A Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and many innocent relatives of the husband are implicated in overzealousness. This section, together with Section 304B on dowry deathIt was brought to probe the rise in dowry killings and cruelty to married women by their in-laws in 1983. But its misuse has angered many since then. Similarly, charges are sometimes made for misuse of certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This special law was made to remove the discrimination faced by the SC and ST communities. , who remain vulnerable and sometimes deprived of their civil rights. But it is alleged that sometimes cases are registered to settle personal accounts.

decision modified

Sensing the misuse of Section 498A, the Supreme Court Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) Released some guidelinesThese include constitution of District Family Welfare Committees (FWCs), withholding of arrest till the complaint is investigated by the committee, disposal of proceedings by a senior judicial officer in case of settlement between the parties, etc. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court Social Work Forum for Human Rights Vs Union of India Modifying the same decision, saying that most directions had the potential to enter the legislative sphere, which was not permitted. It was held that the constitution of the extra-judicial FWC was contrary to the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Similarly, in the Supreme Court Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra (2018), taking cognizance of the abuse of procedure of the courts in respect of certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) The Act issued certain guidelines, including a mandatory preliminary inquiry to avoid false implication of an innocent person, the approval of the appointing authority before the arrest of a public servant, etc.

However, in 2019 the Supreme Court Union of India Vs Maharashtra State and ORSI, rejected the above decision and held that the guidelines were in opposition to the protective discrimination given to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities as envisaged under the Constitution. Filing a false report, the court said, “due to human failure and not because of caste”.

the truth of the allegations

These rulings indicate that courts cannot give additional guidelines when existing laws are clarified and that only the legislature can amend such legislation at its discretion. It also means that it is the responsibility of the police to ensure that once the law is enforced, no undue advantage of the particular law is taken by the complainant. The Investigating Officer should not jump to any conclusion as soon as the FIR is registered. Before an arrest is made, some investigation should be done to confirm the genuineness of the complaint. It is an established law that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on the basis of mere allegation. The arrest must be necessary and justified. Mere right of arrest is not enough.

Supreme Court in its historic decision Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) asked the police to satisfy themselves on the need for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 of CrPC. Police officers are, in fact, duty bound to ensure that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgments are implemented by the investigating officers. Besides this, the Judicial Magistrate is also required to study the report submitted by the police officer and satisfy himself before authorizing further custody.

Although legal remedies are available against those who file false reports, the general perception is that remedial measures are not only inadequate but also ineffective. The first remedial measure is to initiate criminal action against a person who gives false information to the police or makes specific criminal charges against a person. After completing the investigation, the police can initiate action under section 182 or 211 of the IPC respectively. However, both these offenses are non-cognizable and permission of a magistrate is necessary to initiate further legal action. The court, in certain cases, directs the police to take action under these sections if, on completion of the trial, it is found that the allegations were completely false.

Second, the complaint can be filed with the Judicial Magistrate, who after an investigation can take appropriate action against the person who falsely filed a case with the police. Third, the complainant can approach the High Court for anticipatory bail and for quashing of the FIR. The Supreme Court had recently held that even in non-compoundable matters, which are not so serious or private in nature, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, can proceed judicially even after a conviction. can be canceled, the actual agreement is reached between the warring parties. The Law Commission, in its 243rd report in 2012, had suggested making section 498A compoundable with the permission of the court, but the government did not accept it. Fourth, in addition to the above, damages can be claimed under the law of tort for malicious prosecution and causing hurt.

what does the data show

According to the data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in the report crime in india 2020About 5% of the cases under section 498A were found to be false. About 9.4% were either non-cognizable or civil in nature or with insufficient evidence at the end. Similarly, about 12% of cases under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were found to be false by the police, and about 7% were either non-cognizable or civil in nature or with insufficient evidence at the end.

Further, out of 17,765 cases under Section 498A decided by courts, 3,425 cases ended with conviction. Of the 8,138 cases decided by courts under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 3,588 cases ended with conviction. Though there are many reasons for acquittals, including delay in registration of FIR, retraction of witnesses, compromise between parties, lack of proper presentation by the prosecution and appreciation of evidence by the court, etc., the problem arises when a court concludes that the case is false.

Since the responsibility of arriving at the veracity of a case rests primarily on the investigating officer, it is his duty to investigate the matter thoroughly and fearlessly collect all the facts and circumstances. This will ensure that false cases are closed on time and no innocent person has to face the rigors of law.

RK Vij is a senior IPS officer in Chhattisgarh