The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Centre’s response on a plea by five women seeking direction to authorities to ensure mandatory registration of FIRs in criminal complaints filed by women against their husbands where physical violence and other cognisable offences are made out.
The plea also sought a direction to authorities to modify the 2008 and 2019 standing orders issued by the Commissioner of Delhi Police, claiming they give disproportionate emphasis on reconciliation between husband and wife even in instances of severe physical violence.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notice to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Delhi Police, Special Police Unit for Women and Children and the Delhi government on the petition and asked them to file their responses.
The bench listed the matter for further hearing on November 22.
The plea claimed that four of the petitioner women have suffered severe physical violence at the hands of their husbands for several years and have failed to get any recourse from the authorities concerned.
Their grievance is against two standing orders issued by the Commissioner of Delhi Police. The 2008 standing order created the Special Police Unit for Women and Children and laid down the protocol for registering cases under section 498 A of the IPC. The 2019 standing order also reiterated the same position as the 2008 order.
The plea said the practical implications of the two standing orders give disproportionate emphasis on reconciliation between husband and wife, even in instances of severe physical violence and when serious non-compoundable offences of attempt to murder and grievous hurt are made out.
It sought modification of the 2008 and 2019 standing orders to ensure that express consent from complainants is taken before reference to mediation or reconciliation.
“Failure of the authorities to take cognisance of these serious offences, despite the unwillingness of the women to reconcile, results in the perpetuation of violence against them and the continuing violation of their basic fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution,” the petition said.
How can a woman, who has been a victim of physical violence by her husband, be asked to face her perpetrator by going to the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell and be forced to reconcile, senior advocate Rebecca John, representing the petitioners, argued.
“These are cases of physical violence. I am not against reconciliation but in the cases where women have suffered physical violence, police should directly register FIR when a cognisable offence is made out,” she contended.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central government standing counsel Monika Arora, representing the Ministry of Home Affairs, raised the issue of misuse of law by women in cases of domestic violence and dowry-related issues.
The petition said the petitioners are mindful of the reasons behind implementing safeguards before registration of FIRs under Section 498-A of the IPC.
It clarified that the purpose of the petition is to bring the court’s attention to the plight of women who are suffering such severe forms of violence and the “blanket assumption that they are agitating a false complaint”, making the criminal justice system inaccessible to them.
The plea said the petitioners belong to a marginalised section of society with very limited support structures and means of survival.
The plea said the standing orders have led to a situation where married women face severe forms of violence at the hands of husbands or in-laws and when they try to seek help from the police, they are asked to approach the CAW Cell for reconciliation or mediation and no FIR is registered and no criminal investigation is conducted on their complaints.
Also Read
“This is contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari wherein it was held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the information given by the complainant discloses commission of a cognisable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
“The apex court further held that preliminary enquiry may be conducted for matrimonial disputes’ but the scope of a preliminary enquiry is to hear the facts from the complainant and see if any cognisable offence is made out.
“Furthermore, it was clarified that the scope of the preliminary enquiry cannot be expanded to check the veracity of the statements made by the complainant,” the petition said.
It sought direction to authorities to ensure mandatory registration of FIRs in criminal complaints filed by women against their husbands where physical violence and other cognisable offences such as attempt to murder and grievous hurt are clearly made out in line with the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari’s judgment.
The petition also urged that the police force be sensitised on handling gender-related crimes, specifically domestic violence.
