Update 13/10/2017: The judgment is now up for a revisit by SC (so soon!), and the reason for review is: “We can’t write law. We can only interpret the law.”
SC To Revisit The Judgment By Two Judge Bench On Abuse Of Section 498A IPC [Read Petition]
The women’s NGO (comprising of women advocates) which wanted a review of the judgment gave reasoning and statistics about how rural women benefit from IPC 498A and how the ‘evil’ well-educated women misuse the law, but surprisingly in the end they mainly prayed only for addition of women members to FWC. It seems like the gender of who gets to be the committee member is the main determinant of protecting welfare and safety of rural women! Or the more likely reason is that the women advocates who are members of this NGO want a piece of action of the Family Welfare Committee, since that’s where the ‘counselling’ was supposed to get done after July 2017 SC judgment on IPC 498A. But the SC won’t be satisfied with so minor and technical a prayer, and so the whole judgment will be reviewed now. The original judgment had basically created a curious mix of civil and criminal law and procedures with panchayat style Family Welfare Committees, and probably that part will get corrected now or may get thrown out completely. That’s so because the kind of things it suggested (possible clubbing of civil and criminal cases) are not even possible in law, unless the civil and criminal procedure laws are changed first.
Original Post below:
A new set of guidelines has been issued by Supreme Court, after a gap of about 3 years from the significant Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar judgment which curtailed the abuse of power of arrest by police in IPC 498A (and many other crimes) cases. This judgment is in line with creating a more settlement oriented culture, where husbands will be encouraged to pay up and get rid of 498A/406 type of cases, and the carrot being given to accused men and their families are: lesser fear of arrests, facing a civil committee rather than dealing with CAW cells, and lesser pain during trials.
I will post full analysis later. Many people have started proclaiming that this is a path breaking judgment on par with Arnesh Kumar judgment and a further step in right direction, and so on. However, there is nothing in this judgment which will actually curtail filing of false cases by many women. All this judgment will lead to is creation of family welfare committees which will be like civil(ized?) versions of CAW (Crimes Against Women) cells, where husbands and their families will have to deal with a committee, than with police directly. It cannot prevent registration of FIR under 498A/406 etc. Further there are some good points about bail/recovery, personal exemption from appearance; however all of them are in the nature of guidelines to judges rather than have any mandatory force. The one reason why Arnesh Kumar judgment was significant was that it laid down penal possibility for both police and magistrates. It was probably the first time that magistrates’ neck was put on the line from making bad decisions regarding arrest by police. However, this judgment has no such penal features, which could mean that by the time the results of this judgment show on the ground, it may be time for another judgment by SC on another fresh set of guidelines to prevent IPC 498A misuse! The more things change, the more they stay the same…
——————————————-
Full judgment text below:
——————————————-
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2017
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017]
Rajesh Sharma & ors. …Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question which has arisen in this appeal is whether any
directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, as
acknowledged in certain studies and decisions. The Court
requested Shri A.S. Nadkarni, learned ASG and Shri V.V. Giri,
learned senior counsel to assist the Court as amicus. We place on
record our gratitude for the assistance rendered by learned ASG
Shri Nadkarni and learned senior counsel Shri Giri who in turn was
2
ably assisted by advocates Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Pragya Baghel
and Ms. Svadha Shanker.
3. Proceedings have arisen from complaint dated 2nd
December, 2013 filed by respondent No.2 wife of appellant No.1.
Appellants 2 to 5 are the parents and siblings of appellant No.1.
The complainant alleged that she was married to appellant No.1
on 28th November, 2012. Her father gave dowry as per his
capacity but the appellants were not happy with the extent of the
dowry. They started abusing the complainant. They made a
demand of dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and a car which the family
could not arrange. On 10th November, 2013, appellant No.1
dropped the complainant at her matrimonial home. She was
pregnant and suffered pain in the process and her pregnancy was
terminated. On the said version, and further version that her
stridhan was retained, appellant No.1 was summoned under
Section 498A and Section 323 IPC. Appellants 2 to 5 were not
summoned. Order dated 14 July, 2014th read as follows:
“After perusal of the file and the document brought on
record. It is clear that the husband Shri Rajesh Sharma
demanded car and three lacs rupees and in not meeting the
demand. It appears that he has tortured the complainant.
3
So far as torture and retaining of the stri dhan and
demanding 50,000 and a gold chain and in not meeting the
demand the torture is attributable against Shri Rajesh
Sharma. Rajesh Sharma appears to be main accused. In
the circumstances, rest of the accused Vijay Sharma,
Jaywati Sharma, Praveen Sharma and Priyanka Sharma
have not committed any crime and they have not
participated in commission of the crime. Whereas, it
appears that Rajesh Sharma has committed an offence
under Section 498A, 323 IPC and read with section 3 / 4 DP
act appears to have prima facie made out. Therefore, a
summon be issued against him.”
4. Against the above order, respondent No.2 preferred a
revision petition and submitted that appellants 2 to 5 should also
have been summoned. The said petition was accepted by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur vide order dated 3rd July, 2015.
The trial court was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter.
Thereafter, the trial court vide order dated 18th August, 2015
summoned appellants 2 to 5 also. The appellants approached the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC against the order of
summoning. Though the matter was referred to the mediation
centre, the mediation failed. Thereafter, the High Court found no
ground to interfere with the order of summoning and dismissed
the petition. Hence this appeal.
4
5. Main contention raised in support of this appeal is that there
is need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to
settle a matrimonial dispute. Omnibus allegations against all
relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in
normal course it may only be the husband or at best his parents
who may be accused of demanding dowry or causing cruelty. To
check abuse of over implication, clear supporting material is
needed to proceed against other relatives of a husband. It is
stated that respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial home.
Appellant No.2, father of appellant No.1, is a retired government
employee. Appellant No.3 is a house wife. Appellant No.4 is
unmarried brother and appellant No.5 is unmarried sister who is a
government employee. Appellants 2 to 5 had no interest in
making any demand of dowry.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the
impugned order and the averments in the complaint.
7. Learned ASG submitted that Section 498A was enacted to
check unconscionable demands by greedy husbands and their
5
families which at times result in cruelty to women and also
suicides. He, however, accepted that there is a growing tendency
to abuse the said provision to rope in all the relatives including
parents of advanced age, minor children, siblings, grand-parents
and uncles on the strength of vague and exaggerated allegations
without there being any verifiable evidence of physical or mental
harm or injury. At times, this results in harassment and even
arrest of innocent family members, including women and senior
citizens. This may hamper any possible reconciliation and reunion
of a couple. Reference has been made to the statistics from the
Crime Records Bureau (CRB) as follows:
“9. That according to Reports of National Crime
Record Bureau in 2005, for a total 58,319 cases
reported under Section 498A IPC, a total of 1,27,560
people were arrested, and 6,141 cases were
declared false on account of mistake of fact or law.
While in 2009 for a total 89,546 cases reported, a
total of 1,74,395 people were arrested and 8,352
cases were declared false on account of mistake of
fact or law.
10. That according to Report of Crime in India, 2012
Statistics, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs showed that for the year of 2012, a
total of 197,762 people all across India were arrested
under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. The Report
further shows that approximately a quarter of those
arrested were women that is 47,951 of the total were
perhaps mother or sisters of the husband. However
6
most surprisingly the rate of charge-sheet filing for
the year 2012, under Section 498A IPC was at an
exponential height of 93.6% while the conviction rate
was at a staggering low at 14.4% only. The Report
stated that as many as 3,72,706 cases were pending
trial of which 3,17,000 were projected to be
acquitted.
11. That according to Report of Crime in India, 2013,
the National Crime Records Bureau further pointed
out that of 4,66,079 cases that were pending in the
start of 2013, only 7,258 were convicted while
38,165 were acquitted and 8,218 were withdrawn.
The conviction rate of cases registered under Section
498A IPC was also a staggering low at 15.6%.”
8. Referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of
India(1) , Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand(2) , Ramgopal
versus State of Madhya Pradesh(3) , Savitri Devi versus
Ramesh Chand(4), it was submitted that misuse of the provision is
judicially acknowledged and there is need to adopt measures to
prevent such misuse. The Madras High Court in M.P. No.1 of 2008
in Cr. O.P. No.1089 of 2008 dated 4th August, 2008 directed
issuance of following guidelines:
“It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the
enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition
1 (2005) 6 SCC 281
2 (2010) 7 SCC 667
3 (2010) 13 SCC 540
4 ILR (2003) I Delhi 484
7
Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the
same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction.
Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all
family members are implicated and dragged to the police
stations. Though arrest of those persons is not at all
necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made
simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant. By
suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents
could be avoided to a considerable extent by the
Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates themselves accede to the
bare requests of the police without examining the actual
state of affairs, it would create negative effects thereby, the
very purpose of the legislation would be defeated and the
doors of conciliation would be closed forever. The husband
and his family members may have difference of opinion in
the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand are not the
answers. The ultimate object of every legal system is to
punish the guilty and protect the innocents.”
9. Delhi High Court vide order dated 4th August, 2008 in
Chander Bhan versus State(5) in Bail Application No.1627/2008
directed issuance of following guidelines :
“2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order
No.330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the
dowry cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and
the said guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police
strictly and scrupulously.
(i) No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be
registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl.DCP.
(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after
thorough investigation has been conducted and with the
prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
5 (2008) 151 DLT 691
8
(iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc. should only
be made after prior approval of DCP on file.
(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well
behaved staff in all the crime against women cells especially
the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of
perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine
manner.
(d) The endavour of the Police should be to scrutinize
complaints very carefully and then register FIR.
(e) The FIR should be registered only against those
persons against whom there are strong allegations of
causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well as
breach of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be made, before
recommending registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and
in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement,
then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure
return of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused
party to the complainant.”
10. In Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar(6) , this Court
directed as follows :
“11.1All the State Governments to instruct its police officers
not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A
of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the
necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above
flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list
containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
6 (2014) 8 SCC 273
9
11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed
and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the
arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the
Magistrate for further detention;
11.4 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the
accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police
officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its
satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to
the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the
institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which
may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the
district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC
be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall
apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for
departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished
for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court
having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8 Authorising detention without recording reasons as
aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable
for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.”
10
11. Learned ASG suggested that there must be some preliminary
inquiry on the lines of observations in Lalita Kumari versus
Government of Uttar Pradesh(7) . Arrest of a relative other than
husband could only be after permission from the concerned
Magistrate. There should be no arrest of relatives aged above 70
years. Power of the police to straight away arrest must be
prohibited. While granting permission, the court must ascertain
that there is prima facie material of the accused having done
some overt and covert act. The offence should be made
compoundable and bailable. The role of each accused must be
specified in the complaint and the complaint must be
accompanied by a signed affidavit. The copy of the preliminary
enquiry report should be furnished to the accused.
12. Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel assisted by advocates Ms.
Uttara Babbar, Ms. Pragya Baghel and Ms. Svadha Shanker
submitted that arrest in an offence under Section 498A should be
only after recording reasons and express approval from the
Superintendent of Police. In respect of relatives who are
ordinarily residing outside India, the matter should proceed only if
7 (2014) 2 SCC 1
11
the IO is convinced that arrest is necessary for fair investigation.
In such cases impounding of passport or issuance of red corner
notice should be avoided. Procedure under Section 14 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, of
counseling should be made mandatory before registration of a
case under Section 498A.
13. We have given serious consideration to the rival submissions
as well as suggestions made by learned ASG and Shri V. Giri,
Senior Advocate assisted by Advocates Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms.
Pragya Baghel and Ms. Svadha Shanker. We have also
perused 243rd Law Commission Report (August, 2012), 140th
Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petition (September,
2011) as well as several decisions to which our attention has been
invited.
14. Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable
object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his
relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had
potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned
in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983.
12
The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which
may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury
(mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to
coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious
concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under
Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have
already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records
Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such
complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues.
Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of
the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized.
At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only
to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest
may ruin the chances of settlement. This Court had earlier
observed that a serious review of the provision was warranted .
The matter also appears to have been considered by the Law
Commission, the Malimath Committee, the Committee on
Petitions in the Rajya Sabha, the Home Ministry, which have been
referred to in the earlier part of the Judgment. The abuse of the
8 Explanation to Section 498A
9 Preeti Gupta (supra)
13
provision was also noted in the judgments of this Court referred to
earlier. Some High Courts have issued directions to check such
abuse. In Arnesh Kumar (supra) this Court gave directions to
safeguard uncalled for arrests. Recommendation has also been
made by the Law Commission to make the offence
compoundable. 15. Following areas appear to require remedial
steps :-
i) Uncalled for implication of husband and his relatives
and arrest.
ii) Continuation of proceedings in spite of settlement
between the parties since the offence is
non-compoundable and uncalled for hardship to parties
on that account.
16. Function of this Court is not to legislate but only to interpret
the law. No doubt in doing so laying down of norms is sometimes
unavoidable. Just and fair procedure being part of fundamental
right to life, interpretation is required to be placed on a penal
provision so that its working is not unjust, unfair or unreasonable.
The court has incidental power to quash even a
10 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange
Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603- para 52, SCBA v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409- para
47, Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. (1989) 2 SCC 754- para 7, Dayaram vs.
Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 333
11 State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346- para 46,52 & 85, (2014) 4
SCC 453- para-21
14
non-compoundable case of private nature, if continuing the
proceedings is found to be oppressive. While stifling a
legitimate prosecution is against public policy, if the proceedings
in an offence of private nature are found to be oppressive, power
of quashing is exercised.
17. We have considered the background of the issue and also
taken into account the 243rd Report of the Law Commission dated
30th August, 2012, 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on
Petitions (September, 2011) and earlier decisions of this Court.
We are conscious of the object for which the provision was
brought into the statute. At the same time, violation of human
rights of innocent cannot be brushed aside. Certain safeguards
against uncalled for arrest or insensitive investigation have been
addressed by this Court. Still, the problem continues to a great
extent.
18. To remedy the situation, we are of the view that involvement
of civil society in the aid of administration of justice can be one of
the steps, apart from the investigating officers and the concerned
12 Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303- para-61, (2014) 5 SCC
364- para -14
15
trial courts being sensitized. It is also necessary to facilitate
closure of proceedings where a genuine settlement has been
reached instead of parties being required to move High Court only
for that purpose.
19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we
consider it fit to give following directions :-
i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare
Committees be constituted by the District Legal
Services Authorities preferably comprising of three
members. The constitution and working of such
committees may be reviewed from time to time
and at least once in a year by the District and
Sessions Judge of the district who is also the
Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.
(b) The Committees may be constituted out of
para legal volunteers/social workers/retired
persons/wives of working officers/other citizens
who may be found suitable and willing.
16
(c) The Committee members will not be called as
witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Section 498A
received by the police or the Magistrate be
referred to and looked into by such committee.
Such committee may have interaction with the
parties personally or by means of telephone or
any other mode of communication including
electronic communication.
(e) Report of such committee be given to the
Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it
latest within one month from the date of receipt of
complaint.
(f) The committee may give its brief report about
the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.
(g) Till report of the committee is received, no
arrest should normally be effected.
17
(h) The report may be then considered by the
Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own
merit.
(i) Members of the committee may be given such
basic minimum training as may be considered
necessary by the Legal Services Authority from
time to time.
(j) The Members of the committee may be given
such honorarium as may be considered viable.
(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions
Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered
necessary and proper.
ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other
connected offences may be investigated only by a
designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such
designations may be made within one month from
today. Such designated officer may be required to
undergo training for such duration (not less than
one week) as may be considered appropriate. The
18
training may be completed within four months
from today;
iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be
open to the District and Sessions Judge or any
other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in
the district to dispose of the proceedings including
closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily
relates to matrimonial discord;
iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear
day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant,
the same may be decided as far as possible on the
same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may
not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if
maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children
can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that
in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima
facie truth of the allegations, requirement of
further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must
be carefully weighed;
19
v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of
India impounding of passports or issuance of Red
Corner Notice should not be a routine;
vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated
senior judicial officer nominated by the District
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues
Judge to club all connected cases between the
parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that
a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all
such cases are entrusted; and
vii) Personal appearance of all family members and
particularly outstation members may not be
required and the trial court ought to grant
exemption from personal appearance or permit
appearance by video conferencing without
adversely affecting progress of the trial.
viii) These directions will not apply to the offences
involving tangible physical injuries or death.
20. After seeing the working of the above arrangement for six
months but latest by March 31, 2018, National Legal Services
20
Authority may give a report about need for any change in above
directions or for any further directions. The matter may be listed
for consideration by the Court in April, 2018.
21. Copies of this order be sent to National Legal Services
Authority, Director General of Police of all the States and the
Registrars of all the High Courts for further appropriate action.
22. It will be open to the parties in the present case to approach
the concerned trial or other court for further orders in the light of
the above directions.
…………………………………….J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
…………………………………….J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
27th July, 2017
By seeing all the above problems, i recommend people should take dowry and take in higher amounts.
lets say 20 lakhs to 30 lakhs and gold and many other things.
because is she files false cases or any stupidity happens alter on, girl should suffer to get her money back.
its as same as taking huge loan from bank and getting defaulter.
they will file case on you they need to spend so much money for lawyer and court and still they will be loosing other 5 lakhs..
make them loosers ,,, i think its better to take huge dowry.. the same is done in my state Andhra Pradesh.
No dowry no marriage ,, this is the correct away and correct solution for all problems.
My wife filed 498A, 323, 504, 506-2, 114 cases on me, my parents, my six sisters, my four brother in laws, total 13 family members. Her demand was she wanted furniture while I wanted it to be purchased later as I was thinking of shifting city. She could not resist her ego and complained to her elder brother. Her brother had greater ego than her and he took away her from me on 16th April, 2017. Later, he threatened my family saying ‘Current laws are female friendly and I will show you the justice. We want divorce and give us Rs. 30 Lakhs.’ We did not submit to it and she and he filed FIR on us on 26 July 2017. Will above judgment applicable on me? If I bring her back what is guarantee that she won’t file false cases again? What if she wound herself and go to police station for complain? Surprisingly, she is doctor and I never expected an educated person will do such cheap activity.
Judgment should be applicable but the judgment itself is not clear about timeframe of constitution of FWC etc, so it will be confusion for several months at least. You can check with district legal services committee about constitution of FWC in your district.
>> If I bring her back what is guarantee that she won’t file false cases again?
100% guarantee of false case again.
>>Surprisingly, she is doctor and I never expected an educated person will do such cheap activity.
I personally know 2 cases where the 498A filing woman was doctor. And many more professional and high-earning women.
I know 3 cases where the females are doctors.
In the open court, the Magistrate was laughing at her when she asked 1 crore compensation after she was knocked down miserably in the cross examination.
To make things worse, these so called doctors are not behaving like doctors in the court room.
The investigation in 498A IPC cases unnecessarily making an uphill task . Indeed , police can investigate such cases without pitfalls . Due to lack of punishment to erring I.Os, police are registering such cases in routine manner without proper counselling and they are not collecting tangible evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Even supervising officers DSPs/ACPz are least bothering to verify the investigation and to give suitable instructions to I.Os but alas! giving permissions to arrest/not arrest of accused basing on the report sent by the SHO of the police station. In these cases place of occurrence plays vital role but most of the I.Os ignore this fact and mentioning in the FIR that place of occurrence at the residence of victim woman. Probably the harassment may take place at far of places where the husband of woman works. The I.Os are least bothered to visit such places and completing the investigation hurriedly which leading to Acquittals in the Courts. More over taking undue advantage of guidelines of Apex court reg. arrest of accused i.e, in-laws of the woman, the I.Os are not probing into the complaint of victim woman, filing charge sheets after arresting the A1 i.e, husband of the victim leaving in-laws though they also harassed the victim woman. All these blunders are happening in the investigation due to lack of punishments to the I.Os in these case and due to lack of slack supervision of DSPs/ACPs.
Points are valid. It’s police which is responsible to large extent about law misuse, unjustified arrests, useless charge-sheets which can never result in conviction; but most people put blame only on judiciary. There is an SC judgment from 2014 on making police accountable for (low) conviction rate, but like many other things in India, it’s lying somewhere just gathering dust. Police reforms are needed and IO and police/prosecution need to be made accountable for both wrongful prosecution and low conviction rates (because of false cases).
A false case of 498a is lodged against me on 13 Aug 2017 by my wife as ego that she does not want to go Delhi from Amritsar. As I have got new job in Delhi .she is leaving apart from me in Amritsar for last 7 months and has filed a case .why police is not sending my file to family welfare committee inspire they r asking me to come to police station.can they arrest me .why there not following latest supreme court ruling what shall I do..Danish
You can send them copy of the SC judgment. The problem with all these advisory type judgments is that there may not be any force of stick/punishment for not following them immediately or properly, and stick/punishment is the only thing many govt workers respect.
The other practical problem is the FWC itself may time to get constituted and start functioning, so police can also have an excuse that they are only doing their job. When they do bad job, there is hardly any consequence or most in public don’t even complain e.g. after illegal arrest even after Arnesh Kumar judgment, so how will police learn?
Police can only arrest legally if you don’t cooperate in investigation after receiving a CrPC 41 notice.
Brother dont fear my dear, no one has right to touch you.even police will not do anything bro, they treat you good bro just they try na ask what exactly happen. you tell your version of the story what happen.
Later listen from her whats her story and out of 10 points deny 8 and accept 2, this is probability game.
and other two also done by her behavior, in case if you want your wife back.
if you dont want you need to add all false reverse allegation. make sure you dont hit her and have any such evidence with her,
download call recording app in your mobile and start recording all the threat calls and abuse calls,, i won my cases by this call recording evidences
Apart from if complaint was proved as false undoubtedly , false complainant should be punished for 7 years rigorous imprisonment as per u/s 211 of IPC and appropriate compensation should be ensured to all innocent accused.
This 498a law is a mockery of indian judiciary system.
First of all,if a girl comes really wounded and immediately after enquiry any eveidence is found against the inlaws then only even a complaint should be registered.Whenever there are matrimonial issues both husband and wife suffers from mental harassment .
I myself being victim of it use to visit PS daily for around 1 week.
I could see every day some or the other wives (…along with their mothers) would come to register FIR.
If you see the getup and behaviour of these girls and their mothers.Its like
fully makeup with neat and tidy clothes.Not a single person after seeing them would say that they have gone through any harassment or abuse.Just because there is such a provision in law every married women even for the reason of smallest or petty issue or misunderstanding wants to make use of it .
USCIS has also issue and advisory about the misuse of this studpid law .All it does for innocent people is increases the court procedure and headache without proving anything.This is also one of the prime reasons now a days for increasing huge number of unsolved cases pending in court .
Suggested amendment:-If proven not guilty,whatever are the legal expenses spent for this false 498a case should be reimbursed from the girl or her parents.Let them the experience of compensating someone for their mischievous behaviour
>>Suggested amendment:-If proven not guilty,whatever are the legal expenses spent for this false 498a case should be reimbursed from the girl or her parents
Accused proven not guilty (unless judgment says it was false case) is not a crime for complainant. Imagine you filed a police complaint (non IPC 498A) on someone and due to lack of evidence they were acquitted by court, then by your logic you have to pay them expenses. Law cannot be changed only for one section IPC 498A. In fact, the lawmakers have no problem to worry about as long as people keep making such demands as specific misuse provisions only for IPC 498A. People keep making such demands to add specific misuse provisions only to IPC 498A, hence wasting time and energy on something which is not legally tenable. There are already provisions to deal with misuse of laws, but they are not applicable in most IPC 498A trials since accused is acquitted based on lack of evidence rather than being able to prove malicious prosecution/false allegations. The system is smart so once they know the woman may get trapped, they will pressurize accused to compromise or get the complainant and other witnesses to become hostile by giving vague answers during evidence/cross-exam like “I don’t remember” etc. That leads to acquittal, but not finding of a “false case” by judge.
Most reforms/accountability is required at police and investigation stage. The investigation/chargesheeting process needs to be improved and police made accountable for low conviction rate.
Yes the 498 A and 406 ipc is extreme harassment of on laws and husband .
I myself faced the same type of false case in 2013 .On one of the visit to CAW cell in Pitampura Delhi I myself witnessed the tutoring of one of complainant by lady ASI .The ASI asked the extremely poor complainant to put up the list of istridhan costing lacs of rupees .Even a lay person like myself could see that she could barely afford two square meals a day .
A new trend of not filling the detailed list of istridhan and jewellery etc has gained in punjab atleast .The judges till high courts except Delhi are treating the AB proceedings as recovery proceedings and rejecting the bail of husband in punjab high court .
The judgement may give some respite but till the amendment in section 41 is not made regarding justifying arrest ,the respite will be limited .
>>The judges till high courts except Delhi are treating the AB proceedings as recovery proceedings and rejecting the bail of husband in punjab high court .
Public also believes everything that majority of advocates or others say (who don’t know ABC of law), with the result that many people are gladly becoming part of the culture where AB is granted by condition of making a lump-sum deposit in court till IPC 406 case is over. AB proceedings as recovery proceedings is exactly that. One has to ask this question if one is cooperating with investigation and not running away anywhere, where is the need for arrest legally whether IPC 498A or IPC 406? But the fear of arrest, lack of faith in justice system, and mai-baap culture means people want to go with the herd, so it’s difficult for law of bail to get applied as it is originally intended to be.
Sc took really good decisions for 498A.
I hope sc should freeze the time of divorce also for example contested case should not go beyond of 2 years.
with this judgement passed..is it necessary to file anticipatory bail before going to the women’s cell?? they have been pestering my brother to appear before them…he lives in Mumbai the women’s cell where his wife lodged the complaint is Delhi..does he have to go ? the officer claims there is an FIR but refuses to send a copy or even to send a formal request to appear at the police station
FIR is filed only after CAW cell process/drama is over, so if it’s in CAW cell, there can’t be any FIR copy. It’s misleading.
If you go without written notice/letter, then it may only embolden them to harass even more. Attending CAW is optional however by not attending there is possibility of this fact being brought up to attention of court in AB/bail hearing.
Generally people apply for bail/AB when CAW discussions reach a failure stage with no scope for ‘reconciliation’, and an FIR becomes imminent.
Since the proceedings are at remote place, one advice is not to attend too many of them if they are not going anywhere, because asking husband to travel multiple number of times also a kind of harassment. Prepare for filing AB instead.
Legal disclaimer applies. And I’m not a lawyer.
I m not sure it will give any relaxation to a men’s family.becoz administration and police always support a girl without evidence.my sister in law stayed with us for 5 months and she filed a false dowry case in jaipur.police was not ready to listen to us that we have not done anything to her.we asked a medical of a girl they said if girls medical you demand we will do a boy medical also.it was a totally harassment and girl was falsely trapping us along with a police.i don’t know committee will do justice with both the parties.or they also make money from the parties.
great decision by court
Although SC agrees that the 498a is being misused, this doesn’t mean that it said that there are no genuine cases. In my opinion, it’s good for anyone suffering, either women who are really abused and also the men who are wrongfully accused.
But this being said, that court and police should keep in mind that when they say “evidence” of abuse , they’re not taking in consideration the new ways mean men and greedy families are adopting which are foolproof and not illegal but still abusive. Like gaslighting, abandonment.
If they scrap one protection against women, they should introduce something else which is less likely to be misused but should provide relief to the needy.
In my opinion , not really a LANDMARK judgement. They may have changed the process but the essence remains the same as it was before.
This is the problem by default assuming men are bad, women are good.
Women and woman parents select’s the boy based on salary, property, more height, status, handsome. If men are lessor of any thing, such men are not marriage material.
99.99% cases it is same.
Show me how many women married boy who is getting less salary?
who has less property?
Who is equal height, most of the cases women can choose height man, but men should not choose.
98% cases bills paid by men? What dowry law is doing then?
It is completely wrong saying dowry is crime?
As per Hindu succession act women too can take the property from her parents. But why women are not taking and women parents also not giving.
As per Society and Indian family laws, men are just to provide free service to the society and to the women.
It is my personal and practical opinion.
>>98% cases bills paid by men? What dowry law is doing then?
>> It is completely wrong saying dowry is crime?
There is law against dowry, but there is no law against men paying 98%(or whatever percentage) of bills. And there is not going to be any law created anytime soon against men paying bills, because most want it to be that way.
Completely agree on your above statements. Can i know is there any precaution which men can take before marriage to safe his life
Indians are the masters in precaution taking actually. They have the best astrologers, best kundli/horoscope matching people and software both, and yet no one can predict how things will turn out to be!
As regards practical advice on how to judge future bride, there can be many points and precautions, but the problem is the decision making is made based on emotions/feelings and few meetings in arranged marriages, and most of that advice may be ignored by the elders at least. The youngsters can’t make a complete decision by themselves because that is not the social norm and accepted, and so not feasible. I plan to write an article on it sometime though.
It is good decisions. But many times magistrate & police go dumb and do what they want actually. This law is actually crime against women by women only, especially in case where unmarried girls are there in family to spoil there life permanently and make unmarried girls to commit suicide.
so if women is not involved. then it is not crime. so let women file false cases on men. This biased attitude creates the problems.
Good step. But more needs to be done. Family Welfare Committee need to be unbiasedं.
However, a welcome step against women law terrorism against husbands.
Good judgement, This will stop maximum misuse of this provision to harass men in false dowry harassment cases.
Dear MRAs,
Yesterday Supreme Court issued a directive taking into cognisance of the gross abuse of 498A. The directive, apart from other points, emphasises on NO IMMEDIATE ARRESTS and SETTING UP OF FAMILY WELFARE COMMITTEES to reach into a settlement. The social media is buoyed with posts of respite and sheer relief by men’s rights activists hoping that yesterday’s directive will protect innocent husband & their family members from various sorts of harassments. Definitely, yesterday’s judgement is a result of collective raising of our voices though various platforms nationally & internationally. Well, we deserve appreciation, don’t we? My answer is both YES & NO. Yes because SC is repeatedly taking it into record that 498A is being abused and NO because the nuclear weapon in the form of 498A still exists & it still has the capacity to ruin countless innocent people.
This is not the first time Supreme Court has taken into record that 498A is being abused and is a LEGAL TERRORISM. Last time it was in 2014 that historic Arnesh Kr. judgement came in which the SC directed all states to follow 41(A) before making any arrests. At that time also the MRAs, the innocent husbands & their family members as well as many social activists took a respite that the venom of ‘snake’ 498A has been done away with. But we all know what happened aftermath. Except few states, the automatic arrests are still a routine. Take examples of Jharkhand, Bihar, UP, Haryana and many more where police still makes it a point that the innocent husband & his family member are put behind bars that too during odd hours merely at a verbal malicious complaint by the wife. The suicide rates of males due to 498A has ever since increased at a fast pace.
Yesterday’s directive is an appeasement tactic by the govt. through the hands of SC so that we sit back home for couple of years thinking that we have won the war against 498A. Also, the SC has artfully made it a point that it generates more sources of income for its coterie of lawyers & judges by creating family welfare committees at district level. It is quite strange that a judiciary with a stature as that of a Supreme Court suggests to reach into settlement for a malicious complaint of heinous crimes like dowry. It seems to be more of a directive to husbands to cough up money to arrive at settlement because the wife has filed a false 498A. We know what mediation centres as well as CAW cells are. They are nothing but legally approved extortion centres where the mediator himself asks husbands to cough up huge money or else he is threatened of prosecution. SC has made just another such centre.
Using yesterday,s SC directive as a tool, we need to push harder infront of the law makers to scrap 498A or add a strict mis-use clause in it.
We have just got one skirmish in our bag; the war is still ON! Keep fighting, Commandoes!
No Automatic Arrest in 498a, It is Absolutely Good Decisions From SC and I Solute for That.
Please go through below and check out how Iam suffering and I have Documentary proof of each and every Thing still didn’t get the Relief. WHO IS GOING TO HELP ME ?
I Faisal Ahmed khan The victim, married to a woman name Naziya Asma(who is holding 3 husband now) in 2008, iam one of her Husband facing 498A and several cases ,and i am the second husband of her myself and my family get cheated by her and her family they suppress the fact of her first marriage, since i was working in Kuwait i came on vacation for two months to get marry, and for the proposal we didn’t go for more enquiry due to hurry and her father was president of the mosque, After marriage we she started to show her true colour she doesn’t want join me at Kuwait since i had family visa because she want to live fast life then immediate i decide to have a baby and we blessed with baby girl, when she refused to join me at Kuwait i started to visit my home town Mysore India on vacation at every six month and i used to bring her valuable gift gold etc.. , During vacation i used to take her and my daughter to many places to keep her in my life and to entertain my daughter as well, whenever she was in company at public places she used to embarrass me in public with her awkward behaviour with stranger men who in response used to surround me and her at public places with awful intention. Then i finally I resigned my job at Kuwait in the year 2012, intending to save my marital home and came back to my native place Mysore. Where she reluctantly joined me and lived with me for about one year. during that period her brother and father came to my home abused me and my mother in the filthiest vocabulary and also man handled with me finding that my constant present’s with her came in the way of her fast life, finally she left my company in September 2011, under the guise of going to her sister’s engagement and marriage along with her all jewellery ,clothes and valuables including those which i had been given to her on marriage. Then after she never returned inspite of several calls also when i went to her father home to see her and my daughter she pushed me out with the help of her brother and her father’s Hench men.
Then i dejected with such a disastrous marital life, and found a new family status job at Bahrain and made a final bid to call her to accompany me with baby to Bahrain since i had family visa, but my misfortune she never turned up and i was constrained to leave India for Bahrain on 05-02-2012, she don’t want join me at Bahrain also, even she abuse me when call her from Bahrain, finally i given her clear instruction that family visa is always available just send me Email (since i had no tele no.)When ever you are willing to join me and take care of my child. Then two months after i left India to Bahrain on 07-02-2012 she filed a 498A case against me and my family members and all were first beaten up by her brother, father and father’s Hench men then they arrested even my 75yrs old mother pulled up by the police. Then after my said illegal wife Naziya asma and her family specially her father gaffar sheriff known to be as Mysore’s biggest mosque president they made attachment my property and captured my house by misleading the court that aim absconding and selling the property, then they demanded Rs 500,00,000 to withdraw the cases. My family members was shocked when stepped in to court, they came to know through some sources she had also filed similar cases against her first husband Asif ali farooqui with whom she Ran from home and married in a form register marriagein Sub Register office and she enjoyed her life with him 3 years, and filed such a cases against said her first husband said asif ali farooqui and made him and his family members arrest, finally in the year 2010 she took back all cases by taking also Rs-50.00.000, from him That is 2 years after my marriage, and she was attending cases against against her first husband without my knowledge. Here i left the Bahrain job also in the year 2015, since that until today almost 2-1/2 year iam attending the cases at several courts without job without earning a single penny, and she settled in her life by comfortably married third time to one israr sheriff when her first marriage still subsisting until today with said Asif ali farooqui.
With so many proofs you should get relief from court (eventually)… or go to some TV producer of crime serials like Savdhaan India etc.
I am not sure how court attached property so quickly.
I Faisal Ahmed khan The victim, married to a woman name Naziya Asma(who is holding 3 husband now– Very funny and who would be the fourth one will be very lucky.
dont pay a single penny, in return you ask her 50 lakhs for spoling your life. you should have wisely named property on your mothers name.
no one has power to touch parents property. brother dont blindly believe such idiotic women here after.
once she is remarried to some other get the proofs, as per sec 125 ipc you no need to pay maintenance or alimony one she married again.
your 498a end once she remarried khallas… call recording app will help you please install in your phone and start gathering evidence for further harassment,
dont fear for anything