No Arrest For Two Months In S. 498A IPC Cases: SC

It is entirely in consonance with the basic fundamental principle on which our penal laws rest and so also bank upon postulating that, “Innocent until proven guilty” that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal in Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023 and connected matters and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 883 and so also in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 735 that was pronounced just recently on July 22, 2025 aimed at curbing the massive misuse of Section 498A IPC and so also safeguarding the rights of both the parties in matrimonial disputes has approved and so also has very commendably upheld the landmark guidelines that were framed so brilliantly by the Allahabad High Court in a judgment that was delivered by Hon’ble Mr Justice Rahul Chaturvedi in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 which mandates a “cooling-off period” of two months before any arrest is made in a 498A case. It must be disclosed here that the guidelines that were issued by the Allahabad High Court were based on a 2017 judgment in Rajesh Sharma & Ors vs State of UP and Anr. It also merits just no reiteration that by approving the most commendable guidelines that were laid down by the Allahabad High Court, the Apex Court has taken a very progressive step in the direction towards encouraging the conciliation over the unseemly and endless confrontation in family disputes, while also safeguarding the Constitutional rights of the accused from being subjected to arbitrary arrests and so also abuse of legal process as we see unfortunately time and again in so many cases of matrimonial disputes. No denying!

It must be noted that the Allahabad High Court in its 2022 judgment had specified that it was issuing the guidelines drawing guidance from the Apex Court’s judgment in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443. It has also made it absolutely clear that the objective is to check and curb the increasing mala fide tendency among litigants to implicate the husband and his entire family through broad and sweeping allegations. Above all, we need to note that the most notable guidelines that were issued most commendably by the Allahabad High Court were as follows:-

(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 Family Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the 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 districts.

(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 of 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 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 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 (26) 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 misunderstandings between them. Since, this is a job for 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 very outset, this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr CJI BR Gavai and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023 has been filed by the wife - Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel for transfer of HMA No. 1395/2020, titled as “Sahib Bansal Vs. Shivangi Bansal” seeking transfer of the case from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini Court, Delhi to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hapur (Uttar Pradesh). On the other hand, TP (Crl.) No. 631-633 of 2023 is filed by the husband Sahib Bansal seeking transfer of (i) ST 19/2020 arising out of FIR No. 567/2018 lodged at PS Pilakhwa, Hapur titled State Vs. Manju Bansal & Ors. pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Hapur; (i) CC No. 248/2019 under the DV Act titled as “Shivangi Bansal & Anr. Vs. Sahib Bansal” pending before the Judicial Magistrate First, Hapur, UP and (iii) Complaint No. 3692/2020 u/s 406 IPC titled as “Shivangi Bansal Vs. Sahib Bansal & Ors.” pending before the CJM, Hapur Court, UP, to the competent District Court Rohini in Delhi.”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “Additionally, SLP(Crl.) No. 7869 of 2022 and 11848 of 2022 have been filed by Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel against the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, allowing the revision petitions filed by Mukesh Bansal (father of Sahib Bansal/Cr. Revision no. 1122 of 2022) and Manju Bansal (mother of Sahib Bansal/Cr. Revision no. 1187 of 2022), respectively. Further, SLP(Crl) No. 2282/2023 has been filed by Sahib Bansal against the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad rejecting the revision filed by Sahib Bansal (Cr. Revision no. 1126 of 2022).”   

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating briefly on the facts of the case that, “The brief facts leading to the petitions are as follows:

3.1 The petitioner-wife and Respondent-husband were married on 05.12.2015 at the Umrao Farmhouse, Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. A daughter namely Ms. Raina (minor) was born out of the wedlock on 23.12.2016 at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, who is presently 8 years old. After their marriage, the parties resided at 44, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi- 110034, which was their matrimonial home along with the parents of the husband/Sahib Bansal and thereafter, from 30.04.2017 the parties along with their daughter started residing at 130, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura Delhi 110034.

3.2 Owing to matrimonial discord and several disputes arising between the parties and their family members, they separated on 04.10.2018, and since then they have been living separately.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 22 that, “As this matter is being settled by the present order, all allegations made by either party, their family members, or their representatives against each other on various social media platforms, including interviews and statements by the wife or husband that directly allege against each other and/or their family, shall be deleted from the web.”

Do also note, the Bench notes in para 23 that, “Each Party agrees and undertakes to, either directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly: (i) not publish, repeat, disseminate or report any statement or comment, nor take, encourage, induce or voluntarily participate in any action, that would negatively comment on, disparage, defame or call into question the contents of the present order including the cases and proceedings mentioned in Para - 4 above or any documents or pleadings filed therein or orders passed therein (ii) not act in any way with respect to each other which would damage their reputation and present or future activities. Sahib Bansal and his brother Chirag Bansal shall be at liberty to use and intimate the fact of this order for the purpose of his marriage and any issue relating thereto.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 24 that, “Both parties, their parents and family members undertake to this Court that they shall abide by the terms, conditions and directions as recorded above. Default on the part of any of the party will amount to contempt giving a right to the other party to directly approach this Court in Contempt.”

It is also worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 25 that, “In terms of the above observations, directions and conditions/settlement, we deem it appropriate to invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and order for dissolution of marriage between Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel and Sahib Bansal. The decree of divorce shall be drawn up accordingly.”

Most significantly, what must attract maximum eyeballs is that the Bench then encapsulates very briefly in para 26 what really constitutes the cornerstone and also heartbeat of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The transfer petitions and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order. The guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.”