Section 498A IPC is Now Reputed to be Lodged Against Entire Family to Pressurise- Employment Prospective Can’t be Denied Due to This: Allahabad HC

It is certainly no ordinary matter when we see that none other than the biggest High Court in whole of Asia and many say in whole of world that is Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Baba Singh vs State of UP And 2 Others in (Writ – A No. 12055 of 2024) that was pronounced as recently as on 12.8.2024 has minced absolutely just no words to say in no uncertain terms that, “A complaint under Section 498A is by now reputed to be lodged against the entire family in order to pressurize them… If offenses of this kind are to be taken into consideration to judge a prospective candidate’s criminal antecedent, much disservice shall be done to the cause of public employment.” We thus see that this sagacious and pragmatic judgment sought to address the issue of rejecting public employment to candidates based on criminal antecedents arising from family disputes. It is now thus as clear as broad daylight that how much notorious Section 498A has become and how much it is abused and misused that none other than the biggest High Court and so also one of the oldest High Courts in India that is the Allahabad High Court itself is constrained to make such sweeping remark! It must be mentioned here that this leading case primarily revolves around the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner named Baba Singh for the post of Assistant Boring Technician in the Department of Minor Irrigation.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Magistrate, Mirzapur as a party respondent to the petition during the course of the day.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para of this remarkable judgment while delving into the facts of the case stating that, “Prima facie the petitioner, who is a selected candidate for the post of Assistant Boring Technician in the Department of Minor Irrigation, has had his selection cancelled and the cancellation confirmed by the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 on ground that his elder brother and the elder brother’s wife did not get along together which led the elder brother’s wife’s father to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner’s elder brother and all his family members including the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.”

As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in the next para of this robust judgment that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he has challenged the proceedings of the criminal complaint before this Court by means of Application Under Section 482 No. 17829 of 2024 wherein this Court has issued notice and granted stay of further proceedings in the complaint case pending before the Magistrate.”

Most significantly and so also most remarkably, the Bench then minces absolutely just no words to encapsulate what constitutes the actual cornerstone of this refreshing judgment in this new para postulating precisely that, “Prima facie, even if the proceedings had not been stayed, the entire law which empowers the employer to keep a man of criminal antecedent out of his establishment never intends to exclude candidates who may have become victims of prosecutions involving family matters by relatives. A complaint under Section 498A is by now reputed to be lodged against the entire family in order to pressurize them so that the husband patches up with the wife on disadvantageous terms or whatever be the reason. If offences of this kind are to be taken into consideration to judge a prospective candidate’s criminal antecedent much disservice shall be done to the cause of public employment. Many a good talent would be lost to such frivolous complaints or first information reports lodged at the instance of the wife not just against her husband but some of his relatives like a brother or a nephew. It is well known that in complaints of this kind even neighbors are indicted. If this kind of the complaints were accepted to exclude from public employment the neighbor who is named in an FIR lodged by a third person’s wife against her husband would also be dis-entitled to public employment. That is never the intention of the law when the principles to exclude persons with criminal antecedents were evolved as important criteria to exclude undesirable elements from public service.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in the next para of this extremely commendable judgment that, “Issue notice. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur will show cause why despite the aforesaid background which this Court has noticed, he has not issued a character certificate in the petitioner’s favour.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench while striking a very pragmatic note very rightly, rationally and robustly propounds in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that, “A character certificate too is not to be mechanically and blindly refused. The District Magistrate, who is also a citizen and a very junior officer working in the district, would certainly be alive to the social maladies leading to malicious complaints about cruelty and dowry demand implicating the entire family. He ought to have sensitively dealt with the matter and appropriately considered the petitioner’s claim for the issue of a character certificate.” Absolutely right!

What’s more, the Bench then further directs in the next para of this notable judgment that, “The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow will on the principles above mentioned show cause by his affidavit why the impugned order be not quashed and appropriate directions issued ordering the petitioner to be appointed.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in the next para of this progressive judgment that, “The affidavits by the Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow and the District Magistrate, Mirzapur shall be filed on or before 22.08.2024.”

Going ahead, the Bench then further directs in the next para of this pertinent judgment that, “Lay as fresh on 22.08.2024.”

Finally, the Bench then while drawing the curtains of this courageous judgment directs in the last para holding clearly, categorically and convincingly that, “Let this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mirzapur and the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.”

All said and done, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court in this leading case went very deeply into the core legal question that stemmed as to whether the existence of a criminal complaint stemming from a family dispute could be used as a valid reason to deny public employment to a candidate. We also saw how the Court examined in detail whether the rejection of a character certificate and the subsequent cancellation of employment were justified under the legal principles that pertained to the criminal antecedents in public employment. We also see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir who authored this most cogent judgment very commendably took the concerned authorities to task by very rightly issuing notices to the District Magistrate of Mirzapur and the Chief Engineer of Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow asking them to explain why the character certificate was denied to the petitioner mechanically without considering it on merit.

It must be also noted that the Single Judge Bench further underscored most explicitly that the denial of a character certificate should not be ever done just mechanically or without careful consideration of the circumstances as mentioned hereinabove. It also made it indubitably clear that the intent of the law to exclude individuals with criminal records from public service does not extend to disqualifying candidates simply because they are implicated in family disputes. It merits no reiteration that the District Magistrate was very rightly taken to task for failing to handle the precarious situation with the necessary sensitivity as was the dire need at that point of time and was very rightly instructed to provide a valid and bona fide reason for not issuing the certificate to the petitioner.

In a nutshell, it is high time and now women must be definitely made totally accountable for filing of false cases whether it is for rape or for dowry charges or for any other charges just like any other individual and should not be allowed to get away scot free even after making the life of a men and so also his relatives miserable by leveling most serious false charges for various offences under the penal laws. How long will she allowed to get away scot free? Why should she and those who colluded with her including her parents and her relatives not be sent to jail and a huge fine imposed on them for ruining the life of the husband and his parents and relatives?

There can be thus no gainsaying that it is high time and this hot-button issue which as we see now a days so many High Courts and even the Supreme Court time and again is raising its extreme concern over the gross abuse of penal laws needs to be addressed by suitably amending the penal laws in this direction! Without doubt, the ball is definitely now in the court of Centre and so also our policy makers and Parliament to wake up at least now and promptly act most decisively and not be most indecisive as we have been seeing most unfortunately till now which I find truly incomprehensible so that this most brazen, brutal and blind abuse of penal laws is checked, combated and crushed if not fully at least to a very large extent! There can be just no denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.