Ruthless means “brutal” or “disregard for rules.” When someone ignores established rules and regulations, they are recklessly breaking the law. You`ll almost always find that word next to “run” or “roll,” as if a power-hungry politician recklessly ignores anyone who stands in the way of his success. We get this figurative term from the original meaning of roughshod, which is used to describe a horse whose metal shoes have sharp, protruding nails. This was done to avoid slipping, but during the war it caused terrible damage to trampled soldiers. If you`ve been bullied, you may feel like someone has stomped on you recklessly. These sample sentences are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “reckless.” The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. If the alleged sexual harassment takes place within the family, it is likely that the court would tolerate a settlement. This is supported by a precedent that seeks to preserve the institution of the family. These decisions are based on the common law doctrine of privacy, which is not an individualized concept, but is based on the nature of the protected relationship, which is the family. In the past, this has protected the family from government inference, even if the request for interference comes from one of the family members. This also explains why the recommendation to repeal the marital rape exception under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has never been implemented under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013. Therefore, what happens in the family must remain in the family, and everyone must resolve their differences amicably, without involving their neighbors or the state.
In the first part of this two-part article, we have seen that the exercise of the Court`s inherent powers under article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to facilitate the settlement of non-aggregable crimes has hampered the statutory system of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the political considerations of the legislature. In this part, I will explain how such an approach anchors the dichotomy between public and private, which has been heavily criticized by feminists over the years. According to the NCRB, 11,931 Section 498A cases were resolved without trial, 9,693 cases were consolidated, and 1,190 were resolved in 2018. It`s no surprise that in 2018, the conviction rate reached an incredibly high rate of 13%. By allowing the husband or other male relatives to reconcile with a survivor of cruelty, she not only foregoes any possibility of condemning her, but can also expose the wife to even greater harassment. Cases of domestic violence go unreported, mainly for fear of social humiliation and further abuse by partners, which is why almost 74% of women do not report such cases. Domestic violence is rarely communicated, and when it is, family and friends tend to be preferred over formal institutions, underscoring the inherent mistrust of formal institutions. Thus, if formal institutions are used and the court tolerates an agreement between the abuser and the survivor, the risks of revictimization are high, as this is considered a case of dirty laundry in public. Find out which words work together and create more natural English with the Oxford Collocations Dictionary app. Third, the Court`s characterization of certain offences, particularly those arising from marital or family disputes, as private is an inherently patriarchal conception of law that distinguishes between “public” and “private”.
According to liberal theory, the area designated as public is the appropriate land for regulation, while the area designated as private is treated as not under the jurisdiction of the state. Women are relegated to the private sphere, characterized by the home where women are expected to bring comfort, affection and children. This distinction is based on gender differences and contributes to the oppression of women, as it has led to a devaluation of their efforts relative to men in the public sphere. In a family constellation, men use violence against women to exercise power and maintain gender differences. Combined with the common law doctrine of privacy that “natural” family instincts and common interests ensure the well-being of all, government non-interference condemns many women to a routine cycle of violence in the home. Second, the Court must necessarily assume that the accused and the victim have the same bargaining power as the settlement. The facilitation of settlements by the court in some cases allows some accused to circumvent the normal rules of the criminal justice system by flexing their socio-economic muscles. While it may be easy to claim that the victim and the accused have reached a peaceful settlement, it is often difficult to assess the circumstances in which such an agreement will be reached. The circumstances of the settlement must be scrutinized to ensure justice for the less powerful of the settlement. Let us hope that the Court will take this into account when closing the case, otherwise the logic of deterrence explained by Judge Sikri in Narinder Singh will effectively be rendered useless.
I set out the Supreme Court`s interpretation of the inherent powers of the Supreme Court at p. 482 and discussed its interpretation with respect to the admission of settlements for non-cumulative offences. I also analysed its impact on the legal system of the Code of Criminal Procedure and highlighted its discriminatory effect on women within the family. The inherent strengths of HC are extremely extensive and must be used sparingly. However, in order to ensure justice, it should not annul other articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular page 320. Instead of interpreting the section as a strictly priority section, it should be interpreted as harmoniously as possible with other provisions in order to respect the purpose of the law and the political considerations of Parliament. This is a very nice balancing act, because the court should not limit itself to exercising its powers to correct injustices. However, in light of the arguments presented, the precedents set in Laxmi Narayan and other cases need to be reviewed by a larger chamber of the Supreme Court in order to correct their disproportionate impact on women. In the meantime, the Court, in its quest for justice in some cases, would instead perpetuate greater injustice. At this stage, it is important to remember that one of the main considerations taken into account by the Court when deciding to close proceedings on the basis of the settlement of non-criminal offences is the likelihood of conviction. The logic seems to be that, in light of a settlement, the chances of conviction would be slim and the defendant would be subjected to an unnecessary vexatious trial.
This is not justified for three reasons. First, HC should refrain from making a prima facie decision if the evidence has not yet been gathered and fully assessed by the court. It would not be appropriate for HC to examine the complainant`s case in light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be viable and, on that basis, to conclude that the proceedings should be closed. Without proper consideration of the evidence, the court risks bypassing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Evidence Act that guarantee a fair trial for the victim. The Court, in exercising its powers under section 482, tacitly authorized settlement in non-aggregable cases so that the perpetrators of the alleged crime would not face the shame of punishment. This approach has a disproportionate impact on women within the family. While in the above cases rape has been classified as a “heinous” crime and cannot be solved, what about other cases of sexual harassment, such as those covered by p.354 IPC? It seems likely that the court would again decide whether to dismiss a sexual harassment case as “private” or directed against the company. Therefore, given the attitude of the judiciary towards the family, cases of alleged sexual harassment of a woman by other male family members are much more likely to be treated as “private” crimes than similar cases between a woman and a stranger. Subsequently, the former is more likely to be abolished in light of the “regulation” than the latter in order to secure the family. This is extremely problematic. Not only would the court approve the acts of a potential sexual assault, but it would also protect some sexual assaults (within the family) from the criminal consequences of the law, when in reality the nature of the sexual assault remains the same.
Thus, a woman who is sexually assaulted by family members would be treated differently from a woman who is sexually assaulted by a stranger, when in reality there is nothing fundamentally different about sexual assault that should warrant separate treatment. Join our community to access the latest language learning and assessment tips from Oxford University Press! On the basis of this interpretation, an explicit characterization of public and private offences within the family in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, in which the Court stated that “the power conferred by Article 482 of the Code to terminate criminal proceedings for offences not cumulative under Article 320 of the Code may be exercised primarily of a civil nature, in particular those arising from commercial, matrimonial or family disputes, and where the parties have settled the entire dispute between them”. If the allegations contained in the FIR on pages 498A or 354 constitute a prima facie criminal offence, the court must follow the precedent set in Bhajan Lal and several other cases and prosecute.