Supreme Court RulingTwo-Month Arrest Bar Under IPC 498A | SC Upholds Allahabad HC Order

A Reaserch Report by CorpoTech Legal Team

The Supreme Court’s 22 July 2025 ruling preserved every safeguard the Allahabad High Court articulated in June 2022 to stem abuse of Section 498A IPC or Section 85 of BNS, 2023. . Below is a meticulous presentation of those High Court directives—verbatim, comprehensively contextualised, and cross-referenced to precedent, procedure, and practical impact.

Overview

In Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 (Mukesh Bansal v State of U.P.), Justice Rahul Chaturvedi crafted a 14-point protocol (¶35, read with ¶¶32-38) that:

• Imposes a mandatory 2-month “cooling-off” period before any arrest once a 498A FIR or complaint is lodged, and

• Channels every non-injury dowry-cruelty grievance into newly constituted Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) for mediated scrutiny.

On 22 July 2025 the Supreme Court (Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih) upheld those measures in Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023, calling them a balanced response to rampant misuse.

The Allahabad High Court’s 14-Point Framework (Verbatim)

 

Statutory Context and Judicial Lineage | Section 498A IPC: Legislative Purpose and Misuse

Section 498A, inserted in 1983, criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives, intending to curb dowry violence. Yet over decades multiple Supreme Court benches flagged “unbridled” arrest practices and sweeping, often exaggerated accusatory drafts that ensnare distant kin.

Earlier SC Attempts

1. Rajesh Sharma v State of U.P. (2017): First mooted FWCs and arrest fetters but was partly overturned in Social Action Forum (2018) for exceeding judicial remit.

2. Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014): Directed police to apply S.41 CrPC arrest guidelines in 498A complaints.

Allahabad HC Innovation

Justice Chaturvedi synthesised these strands, anchoring his safeguards within the “reasonable procedure” caveat endorsed by Social Action Forum and invoking Article 21’s liberty mandate16. His model resurrected FWCs with clearer statutory moorings (via DLSA) and a strict no-arrest window—ensuring due process without stifling genuine grievances.

Supreme Court Seal (2025)

The apex court observed that the Bansal family’s 109-day and 103-day incarcerations, later deemed unwarranted, exemplified systemic excesses27. Upholding ¶¶32-38 in toto, it ruled the HC formula strikes an “equitable balance” between victim-protection and accused-liberty, and ordered pan-India implementation unless Parliament legislates otherwise.

Practical Implications for Stakeholders For Law-Enforcement

• Arrest Threshold: IOs must document Cooling-Period compliance before seeking custodial measures, failing which courts may invoke personal cost sanctions.

• Training Mandate: State DGPs must create one-week intensive modules (psychology of marital strife, mediation ethics, evidence preservation) for designated 498A IOs.

For Judiciary

• Magistrate Workflow: Immediate FWC referral becomes a jurisdictional prerequisite; any cognisance order sans FWC report risks being quashed on procedural grounds.

• Settlement Powers: District judicial officers can compound or quash proceedings post-settlement, streamlining docket congestion.

For Litigants

• Complainant: Gains structured mediation that could yield quicker maintenance or reunited cohabitation without prolonged adversarial proceedings.

• Accused Family: Secures two-month liberty buffer—crucial for negotiating compromise or collecting exculpatory material—mitigating reputational harm.

Alignment with Criminal Procedure Code

 

Comparative Snapshot: Other High-Court Approaches

Critiques and Safeguards Against Overreach

Legal scholars caution that family-welfare mediation should not trivialise serious offences such as dowry-death or grievous hurt. The HC wisely excludes injury-laden S.307 IPC scenarios from automatic FWC diversion1. Additionally, by forbidding FWC members from later testifying, the order preserves neutrality while maintaining investigative integrity.

Implementation Timeline

1. Within 3 months of HC order : All district judges were to constitute FWCs and issue operational circulars.

2. By Aug 2025: State governments must file compliance affidavits before the Supreme Court explaining training modules, FWC rosters, and data on cases processed during Cooling-Period.

3. Ongoing: Annual review of FWC efficacy by State Legal Services Authorities; findings to inform any legislative amendment proposals.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s 14-point framework—now backed by the Supreme Court—transforms the procedural landscape of Section 498A IPC. By mandating a 60-day pause, institutionalised mediation, specialised IOs, and expedited settlement powers, the judiciary has forged a calibrated tool that protects genuine victims while thwarting indiscriminate arrest and collateral familial devastation. Observance of these directives is no longer optional; it is a binding constitutional safeguard that law-enforcement, magistracy, and litigants must internalise to uphold both marital dignity and personal liberty.

References: