MISUSE OF SECTION 498A

OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IN INDIAN

INTRODUCTION:-

Whenever a problem is created in the society or created itself by the society for it self-
serving purpose, it does not affect the social order which always needs smooth sailing or
unobstructed and that flow of social order when reaches the stage of stagnancy, it
deteriorating effect can be well visualize in the cataclysm of disturbed law and order. Before
the year 1983 there was no specific legal provision pertaining to violence against women at
domestic front. Husbands guilty of committing violence on their wives could be convicted
under general provisions relating to murder, causing hurt, abetment to suicide or wrongful
confinement. These general provisions under criminal law do not take into account the
specific situation of women facing violence within confines of home as against assault by an
outsider or a stranger. Therefore, an amendment was made in 1983, which added Section
498-A to Chapter XVI, IPC. In its statement of the Objects and Reasons the Criminal Law
Amendment Act emphasize- “the increasing number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious
concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the
Houses to examine the working of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Now day misuse of the provision has become a daily phenomenon. In the modern days the
abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the women often well educated to know this
section is cognizable and non- bailable. We are not talking about the dowry deaths or
physical injury cases but about dowry harassment cases that require no evidence and can be
filed just based on a single-sentence complaint by the wife. In India, thousands of such false
cases are filed each year. The survey proves that the more than 90% cases fields are false in
different High courts and Supreme Court.

Cases of cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by
or murder of hapless women concerned constitute only a small fraction of cases involving
such cruelty. It is therefore proposed to amend the IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but
also cases of cruelty to married woman by their in-laws”.

1
Law commission also suggest to make a strict law need to be passed by the parliament in
order to punished those who act malafieldly and tries to misguide the system of law.
Proposals for amending the law.4 Organizations across the country pressurized and urged the
government to provide legislative protection to women against domestic violence and dowry.
The objective was to allow the state to intervene rapidly and prevent the murders of young
girls who were unable to meet the dowry demands of their in-laws. As a result of the intense
campaigning and lobbying, significant amendments were made in the Indian Penal Code, the
Indian Evidence Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, with the intention of protecting women
from marital violence, abuse and dowry demands. The most important amendment came in
the form of the introduction of Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The text of the law is given below:
Indian Penal Code - Section 498A,

498A. HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND OF A WOMAN SUBJECTING

HER TO CRUELTY:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman;

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is an offence. It is a cognizable, non-bailable, and
non-compoundable offence.

The Malimath committee in 2003 also proposed that Section 498A be made bailable and
compoundable because misuse of this section his highly use in the society, but these
amendment opposed by the many of the women’s group and finally legislative assembly
doesn’t work properly on this section.

The Supreme Court says, “But by misuse of the provision (IPC 498a - Dowry and Cruelty
Law) a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield
and not an assassin’s weapon”6. Laws originally meant to protect from the dowry menace are
being misused by urban ill-intentioned, unscrupulous women and their families as “an

2
assassin’s weapon”. There is a rapidly escalating social evil in Indian families, namely the
misuse of the Dowry and Cruelty laws (Criminal Laws), which were originally meant to act
“as a shield” for the protection of harassed women. Nowadays, the educated urban Indian
women have turned the tables. They have discovered several loopholes in the existing Indian
judicial system and are using the dowry laws to harass all or most of the husband’s family
that includes mothers, sisters, sisters-in-law, elderly grandparents, disabled individuals and
even very young children.

One of the merits of Section 498-A IPC is that it is wide enough to include mental cruelty.
Though the term `grave' is not elaborated by the lawmakers, in practice, everyday violence
suffered by majority of women is precluded. The law does not defined `domestic violence'
though it explicates the term `cruelty' to include (1) Any willful conduct that is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide; (2) Willful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the
life, limb and health of the woman; (3) Harassment with the view to force the woman or her
relatives to give property; (4) Harassment because woman or her relatives have not given any
property.
The Centre for Social Research released a research report opposing amendments to section
498A. According to this report, out of 30 cases studied, there were no convictions based
solely on section 498A. In addition, a majority of the women in the studied cases had
suffered physical and mental abuse for at least 3 years before filing a complaint. However,
the report states that 6.5 percent of the studied cases were found to be false complaints.
On December 17, 2003, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs, I.D. Swami, said,
"There is no information available with the Government to come to the conclusion that many
families in India are suffering due to exaggerated allegations of harassment and dowry cases
made by women against their husbands and other family members involving them in
criminal misappropriation and cruelty."
In August 2010, the Supreme Court asked the Government of India to amend the Dowry
Laws to prevent their misuse.
In its latest recommendation to the law ministry, the commission headed by Justice PV
Reddy, has recommended to the government to make Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), which deals with harassment for dowry and cruelty to a woman in her
matrimonial home, a compoundable offence.[25] The commission said the offence should be
allowed to be made compoundable provided the women are facing no external pressure.

3
LETRATURE REVIEW:-

REPORTS:-

Law commission of India Report:-

The Home Secretary, Government of India through his D.O. letter dated 1st September, 2009
requested the Law Commission of India to consider suggesting amendment, if any to s.498A
of Indian Penal Code or other measures to check the alleged misuse of the said provision.
Thereafter, in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) the Supreme Court
observed that “serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the Legislature. It is a
matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a
large number of complaints. The tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a very
large number of cases”. Copy of the Judgment has been directed to be sent to the Law
Commission and Union Law Secretary for taking appropriate steps.

The Malimath Committee Report:-

This section, therefore, helps neither the wife nor the husband. The offence being non-
bailable and non-compoundable makes an innocent person undergo stigmatization and
hardship. Heartless provisions that make the offence non-bailable and non-compoundable
operate against reconciliations. It is therefore necessary to make this offence (a) bailable and
(b) compoundable to give a chance to the spouses to come together. There is a general
complaint that section 498A of the IPC regarding cruelty by the husband or his relatives is
subjected to gross misuse and many times operates against the interest of the wife herself.
This offence is non-bailable and non-compoundable. Hence husband and other members of
the family are arrested and can be behind the bars which may result in husband losing his
job. Even if the wife is willing to condone and forgive the lapse of the husband and live in
matrimony, this provision comes in the way of spouses returning to the matrimonial home.
This hardship can be avoided by making the offence bailable and compoundable.

National Commission for Women, India:-

National Commission for Women represented by Member-Secretary placed before the
Parliamentary Committee on Petitions (Rajya Sabha) (report presented on 07.09.2011) has
been summarized in the report of the Committee.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 have an element of
commonality and need to be harmonized and uniformly implemented.

4
Police should in the interest of the protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen ensure
that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction after some investigation as to
the genuineness and bonafide of a complaint and the need to effect arrest.
Creation of Mahila Desks at police station and Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, at least
at the district level which would specifically deal the complaints made by women. When a
wife moves to file a complaint to a women cell, a lot of persuasion and conciliation is
required.

Articles:-

Sec 498A of the Indian Penal Code a weapon in the hands of vamp by Aejaz Ahmed on
January 3 2005

IPC section 498a was originally designed to protect married women from being harassed or
subjected to cruelty by husbands and/or their relatives. This law was mainly aimed at curbing
dowry harassment. Unfortunately, this law has been misused to harass men and their families
rather than protect genuine female victims of harassment. The Supreme Court of India itself
has labeled the misuse of section 498a as “legal terrorism” and stated that “many instances
have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an
oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does not wipe out the ignominy
suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the
misery.“ In agreement with the above statement, the findings of a study conducted by The
Centre for Social Research indicated that 98 percent of the cases filed under IPC section
498a are false. Nevertheless, the law has been always justified based on its intention of
protecting women. At this point it would be worthwhile to think about how IPC section 498a
has really affected women.

Dowry law is a shield, not an assassin's weapon by J. Venkatesan  

Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with dowry harassment of a woman by
either her husband or his relatives."The object of this provision is prevention of the dowry
menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to
light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an oblique motive,"

Dowry law no licence to settle scores by R. VENKATARAMAN

The judges, however, declined to strike down Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 113B of the Dowry Abolition Act providing punishment for giving or taking
dowry.“Merely because the provisions are constitutional' that does not give a license to
unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment,” The judges said “it
may become necessary for the legislature” to find “appropriate” ways to deal with people

5
behind “frivolous complaints or allegations”, as the laws do not give any directions in this
regard. The observation is neither a directive nor a mandate under any article of the
Constitution. However, the judges said trial should continue in the dowry case that prompted
the apex court’s comments. Courts “have to take care of the situation within the existing
framework” till the legislature brings a provision to deal with “frivolous” complaints, the
bench said. The object of the laws are “to strike at the root of the dowry menace” and the
“provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin’s weapon, it said. If people
cry “wolf” too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the
actual “wolf” appears”,

Plug loopholes in law on dowry by The Indian Express January 18, 2010
The Supreme Court has asked the legislature to find ways for plugging the loopholes in the
law against “false” dowry complaints against the in-laws and husband by a woman in view
of the increasing number of such cases coming to courts but refused to strike down Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with such complaints.

Merely because the provision of Section 498A “is constitutional and intra vires, does not
give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment (of
in-laws and husband). It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out
ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with,”
a Bench of Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr. Justice H.K. Sema said while disposing of
public interest litigation (PIL) on the issue.

But the court rejected the plea of striking down the provision of Section 498A made in the
PIL, saying that as long as the legislature comes out with a remedy, “till then the courts have
to take care of the situation within the existing framework.”

While noting that the object of the provision of Section 498A is to strike at the root of dowry
menace, the court said it had also been rightly pointed out in the PIL that many instances had
come to light where the complaints by the so-called dowry victims were “not bona fide and
have been filed with oblique motive.”

BOOKS:-

IPC 498A “I was alive, 498A killed me” By Amit bhandari

This book is a classic work on the section 498A on Indian penal code he says that Every man
and woman of any age, marital status and religion must read this book to know how an (in)
effective law can, and does, create havoc through its misuse in our society and adversely

6
affect both husband and wife by spreading internal unrest, tyranny, legal terrorism and
anarchy within their families.

Law relating to dowry, dowry death, cruelty to women & domestic violence by suman
nalwa, hari dev singh:-
This book covers a whole current phenomenon in society it includes misuse of the women
law by the women and current case laws which is given by the Supreme Court and other high
courts.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:-

In our society misuse of section 498A of Indian penal code is increasing rapidly and the
Supreme Court and many high courts from time to time pronounced many judgments to stop
these evil in the society.

The major problem in Section 498A is that the offence is not compoundable, non-bailable
and cognizable. Because once a complaint is lodged the accused has suffer. The police in
such cases register FIR and forward the charge sheet without proper investigation in most of
the cases. A lot of men have had their lives ruined because of this drastic section. This
section is also violet the constitutional rights of men and only protect the women. According
to constitution provision of this section is harassing the husband and relatives and violet their
fundamental rights. It also considers mental harassment number of relatives can be named
and summoned - even if they have never lived with you, are in different cities or abroad -
citing harassment over phone or any incident when they visited India. Married sisters are
prime target, dragging even her in laws into the case to exert pressure. Since the law is
cognizable and non-bailable, police has a free hand in arresting anyone who it deems fit as
per the written complaint by the woman without 'any' investigation.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:-

 Whether section 498A have been beneficial for Indian society or not?

 Whether section 498A is against the constitutional rights of the men?

 What are the major reason behind the field numerous false cases in India?

 Whether there is any requirement to amend the section 498A?

7
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

 To analyse the current impact of section 498A in society.

 To analyse the present position in country with data analysis.

 To find out any necessity to amend the law.

 To determine India’s position in filed false cases.

HYPOTHESIS:

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

My aim is to study the cause and effect relationship that this section brought about in the
matrimonial sphere of the Indian society. This research is based only Indian society and
current legal judicial decisions.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology adopted for this research is doctrinal in nature. There shall be
extensive review of books, articles, journals, literature and statutory law of India on the point
at hand. Various Indian laws and landmark judgments related to the subject matter shall be
addressed. In addition, a significant portion of this research shall be attributed to cases
decided as well as pending at the Indian courts dealing with the same or related subject
matter.

8
CHAPTERISATION SCHEME:-

CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It was introduced in the
code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). By the same Act section
113-A has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of
suicide by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is to protect a
woman who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband.

Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, reads as follows:

Sec. 113-A, Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry
death.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in
section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The object for which section 498A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons while enacting Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of
1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious
concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the
Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some of cases, cruelty of
the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the
helpless woman concerned, which constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty.
Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short ‘the
Cr.P.C’) and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry
deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in- law’s and relatives.
The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty.

The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this section. Drinking and
late coming habits of the husband coupled with beating and demanding dowry have been
taken to amount to cruelty within the meaning of this section, but this section has been held
not to include a husband who merely drinks as a matter of routine and comes home late. 6 In
a case before Supreme Court it was observed that this section has given a new dimension to

9
the concept of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct
described here would be relevant for proving cruelty.

Meaning of Cruelty

It was held in ‘Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu ’, that cruelty is a common essential in
offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not mutually
inclusive but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for the
offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning
of cruelty is given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B does not contain its meaning
but the meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B
as well. Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under
section 304-B the offence is of dowry death and the death must have occurred during the
course of seven years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section 498-A.

In the case of ‘Inder Raj Malik vs. Sumita Malik’ , it was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is
defined in the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a woman with a view to
coerce her or any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any
valuable security is cruelty.
Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:
(a)Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b)Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand 
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children

The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence Act,1872 also
arose making the husband guilty of abetment of suicide within the meaning of section 306
where the husband had illicit relationship with another woman and used to beat his wife
making it a persistent cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) of section 498-A.

10
 CHAPTER-2

History, structure and legal frame work

The beginning of 19th century plays an important role in degrading Indian women till its
depth. The fear of insecurity not only envisaged in unmarried young women but also married
women. In India, “family” has always been prime importance. Marriage being an important
social institution since Vedic period was biased against women. It was regarded as the social
alliance between two families instead of two persons. The bride was expected to serve her
husband and his family and ensure their happiness and well being. There was no question of
her happiness, expectation or content. There were three main objectives of Hindu marriage:
dharma or religious duties to be performed by the couple, proja or procreation, and rati or
conjugal love.

The exploitation of woman began with the child marriage. A girl too young to take life
seriously, a girl too young to understand the meaning of ‘life’ and ‘marriage’, had to step
into the world of thorns. She was subjudicated by her mother-in-law and other members of
her husband’s family, most of the time including even her husband. She was expected to
observe ‘purdah’, not to speak to elders, speak in low voice to younger members of family,
not to speak or meet her husband except midnight and bear all harsh words and sufferings for
even minor fault and above all never to express her sorrows or utter a word of distress to
anyone.
A woman had no freedom, neither personal nor economic. Traditionally, the Hindu woman
had distinct economic right called ‘stridhan’. In order to partially set off the disability
suffered under the notion of joint ownership by male members, the smritikars assigned a
special category of property to women termed as ‘stridhana’. The first mention of this term is
found in Gautama Dharma sutra. He provided not only for the women’s separate property but
also distinct and separate rules for its succession. But the definition of ‘stridhana’ changed
over from time to time, granting all the rights and power to husbands. Consent of the girl was
not considered to be relevant and hence, she was left with no choice, except to accept all
pains and marry.

The traditional concept of marriage has greatly changed and Hindu marriage is considered to
be of dual nature i.e. of both religious sacrament and contract, where mutual consent and
benefit of both the parties are duly aided by different legal provisions and reforms. Attempts
to bring about changes in the status of women either through legislation or judicial activism

11
can achieve little success without a simultaneous movement to transform the social and
economic structures and the culture (values, ideologies and attitudes) of society.4

One of those attempts to bring changes in status of women and relieve her from her
sufferings, pains and gloomy environment is given under chapter XX-A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was amended in the year 1983 to include the provisions of
Section 498 A which deals with the punishment of the husband and his relatives if a married
women is subjected to cruelty which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause
grave physical or mental injury to her, and harassment with a view to coercing her or any of
her relatives to meet any unlawful demands of property. The offence is cognizable, non-
bailable and non-compoundable. Hence once a complaint is lodged on the above mentioned
grounds the accused has a lot to bear. With the rise in modernization, education, financial
security and the new found independence the radical feminist has made 498A a weapon in
her hands. Many a hapless husbands and in laws have become victims of their vengeful
daughter-in-laws. Most cases where Sec 498A is invoked turn out to be false as they are
mere blackmail attempts by the wife when faced with a strained marriage. In most cases 498a
complaint is followed by the demand of huge amount of money (extortion) to settle the case
out of the court.
Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab, 2000 CriLJ 2993 the apex court observed as: “for the fault of the
husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts
attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be
held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of
the husband as accused has to be curbed”

Karnataka High Court, in the case of State Vs. Srikanth, 2002 CriLJ 3605 observed as:
“Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sisters-in-law has to be
depreciated unless there is a specific material against these persons, it is down right on the
part of the police to include the whole of the family as accused”

12
 CHAPTER-3

Constitution Validity of Section 498-A

In ‘Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Mrs. Sumita Malik’, it was contended that this section is
ultra vires Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. There is the Dowry Prohibition
Act which also deals with similar types of cases; therefore, both statutes together create a
situation commonly known as double jeopardy. But Delhi High Court negatives this
contention and held that this section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section
498-A is distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter
mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary,
whereas section 498-A deals with aggravated form of the offence. It punishes such demands
of property or valuable security from the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to
her. Hence a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences punishable under
section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
This section gives wide discretion to the courts in the matters of interpretation of the words
occurring in the laws and also in matters of awarding punishment. This provision is not ultra
vires. It does not confer arbitrary powers on courts.

In the leading case of ‘Wazir Chand vs. State of Haryana ’, involving the death by burning of
a newly married woman, the circumstances did not establish either murder or an abetted
suicide and thus in-laws escaped the jaws of section 300 and 306, but they were caught in the
web of this newly enacted section for prevention of harassment for dowry. Not to speak of
the things they are persistently demanding from the girl’s side, the fact that a large number of
articles were taken by her father after her death from her matrimonial abode showed that
there was pressure being exerted on-in laws and continued to be exerted till death for more
money and articles.

The Commission is of the view that the Section with its allied Cr.PC provisions shall not act
as an instrument of oppression and counter harassment and become a tool of indiscreet and
arbitrary actions on the part of the Police. The fact that s.498A deals with a family problem
and a situation of marital discord unlike the other crimes against society at large cannot be
forgotten. It does not however mean that the Police should not appreciate the grievance of the
complainant woman with empathy and understanding or that the Police should play a passive
role. S.498A has a lofty social purpose and it should remain on the Statute book to intervene
whenever the occasion arises. Its object and purpose cannot be stultified by overemphasizing
its potentiality for abuse or misuse. Misuse by itself cannot be a ground to repeal it or to take

13
away its teeth wholesale. The re-evaluation of Section 498-A merely on the ground of abuse
is not warranted. Besides that, while courts are confronted with abusive dimensions,
sometimes very visibly in Section 498A prosecutions, we cannot close our eyes to a large
number of cases which go unprosecuted for a variety of reasons.

Section 498-A has to be seen in the context of violence and impairment of women’s liberty
and dignity within the matrimonial fold. Mindless and senseless deprivation of life and
liberty of women could not have been dealt with effectively through soft sanctions alone.
Even though values of equality and non-discrimination may have to gain deeper roots
through other social measures, the need to give valuable protection to vulnerable sections of
women cannot be negated.

While the Commission is appreciative of the need to discourage unjustified and frivolous
complaints and the scourge of over-implication, it is not inclined to take a view that dilutes
the efficacy of s.498A to the extent of defeating its purpose especially having regard to the
fact that atrocities against women are on the increase. A balanced and holistic view has to be
taken on weighing the pros and cons. There is no doubt a need to address the misuse
situations and arrive at a rational solution – legislative or otherwise, while maintaining the
efficacy of law. While we acknowledge diverse points of view, some with extreme emphasis
and connotations, the point to be noted is that the value to be attached to the rights of women
are no less than the value to be attached to the family as a unit and vice-versa. The challenge
before the community is to ensure the promotion of both values. The emphasis should
therefore be on wise moderations without overlooking the need and relevance of the
retention of penal sanctions necessary to protect and promote women’s rights and interests.

There is also a need to create awareness of the provisions especially among the poor and
illiterate living in rural areas who face quite often the problems of drunken misbehavior and
harassment of wives. More than the women, the men should be apprised of the penal and
other provisions of law protecting the women against harassment at home. The easy access
of aggrieved women to the Taluka and District level Legal Service Authorities and/or
credible NGOs with professional counselors should be ensured by appropriate measures.
There should be an extensive and well-planned campaign to spread awareness on right lines.
Presently, the endeavor in this direction is quite minimal.

Compounding the Offence

There is preponderance of opinion in favour of making the offence under S,498-A

compoundable with the permission of the court. Even those (individuals, officials and
14
organizations) who say that it should remain a nonbailable offence, have suggested that the
offence should be made compoundable, subject to the permission of court. Some States, for
e.g., Andhra Pradesh have already made it compoundable. The Supreme Court, in the case of
Ramgopal v. State of M. P. in SLP (Crl.) No. 6494 of 2010 (Order dt. July 30, 2010),
observed that the offence under S, 498-A should be made compoundable. However, there is
sharp divergence of views on the point whether it should be made a bailable offence. It is
pleaded by some that the offence should be made bailable at least with regard to husband’s
relations and in respect of the cases failing under second part of the Explanation Clause (b)
to Section 498-A.

15
 CHAPTER-4

Decisions and Data of filing false cases

Supreme Court decision on Section 498A a landmark judgment in case of Arnesh kumar vs.
State of Bihar criminal appeal no. 1277 of 2014 The Supreme Court has ruled that the police
cannot automatically arrest an accused in a dowry case before judicially examining it. A
bench headed by Justice C K Prasad directed all the state governments to instruct its police
officers not to automatically arrest an accused in such cases.

The apex court expressed concerns over misuse of the anti dowry law. Section 498-A of the
IPC was introduced with object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands
of her husband and his relatives.

In the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) the Supreme Court observed that
“serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the Legislature. It is a matter of
common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number
of complaints. The tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of
cases”. Copy of the Judgment has been directed to be sent to the Law Commission and
Union Law Secretary for taking appropriate steps.

Delhi High Court in Chandrabhan Vs. State (order dated 4.8.2008 in Bail application
No.1627/2008) and of the Madras High Court in the case of Tr. Ramaiah Vs. State (order
dated 7.7.2008 and 4.8.2008 in MP No.1 of 2008 in Crl. O.P. No.10896 of 2008). It was
observed that “there is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the
moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in
their tussle and ongoing hostility, the hapless children are the worst victims”.

Sunder babu & ors. Vs. state of Tamil nadu criminal appeal no.773 of 2003 in this case the
Supreme Court said that quashing a FIR if it is used in mala fide or ulterior motive.

Cruelty by husband or his relatives (Sec.498-A IPC) (Incidence: 1,06,527  Rate: 8.8) A total
of  1,06,527  cases were reported in the country during the year 2012 showing an increase of
7.5% over 2011 and an increase of 21.1% over the average of last 5 years (2007  -  2012).  In
terms of percentage, 43.7% of such crimes in the country were reported from three
states only namely West Bengal (19,865 cases), Andhra Pradesh (13,389 cases) and

16
Rajasthan (13,312 cases). Tripura has reported the highest crime rate of 23.4 followed by
West Bengal (21.9) and Assam (20.6) as compared to National average of 8.8.

Conclusion and Suggestion

IPC section 498a was originally designed to protect married women from being harassed or
subjected to cruelty by husbands and/or their relatives. This law was mainly aimed at curbing
dowry harassment. Unfortunately, this law has been misused to harass men and their families
rather than protect genuine female victims of harassment. The Supreme Court of India itself
has labelled the misuse of section 498a as “legal terrorism” and stated that “many instances
have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an
oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does not wipe out the ignominy
suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the
misery.“ In agreement with the above statement, the findings of a study conducted by The
Centre for Social Research indicated that 98 percent of the cases filed under IPC section
498a are false. Nevertheless, the law has been always justified based on its intention of
protecting women. At this point it would be worthwhile to think about how IPC section 498a
has really affected women.

It has been argued by Government officials favoring the law that despite the establishment of
legal measures to counter harassment of married women, there is an increase in the number
of cases of harassment. The first part of the statement suggests that women who are harassed
should be utilizing this law as a means of protection. If harassed women indeed used the law
then we should see a decrease in the number of cases of harassment over time. Considering
the stringent consequences imposed by the law and the inordinate delays inherent in the legal
system, no ordinary citizen, male or female, would be impudent enough to risk being
implicated under this law for the sake of satisfying their monetary or even sadistic desires for
that matter. The fact is that many women who are actually beaten up and harassed by their
husbands and in-laws rarely file 498a or resort to other dowry related laws.

17
 Bibliography:-

Acts:-
1 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Articles:-

1. Sec 498A of the Indian Penal Code a weapon in the hands of vamps by Aejaz Ahmed
on January 3 2005

2. Dowry law is a shield, not an assassin's weapon by J. Venkatesan  

3. Dowry law no licence to settle scores by R. VENKATARAMAN

4. Plug loopholes in law on dowry by The Indian Express January 18, 2010

Books:-

1. IPC 498A “I was alive, 498A killed me” By Amit bhandari

2. Section 498A- used or misused, publisher by sanlaap 2005

3. Law relating to dowry, dowry death, cruelty to women & domestic violence by suman
nalwa, hari dev singh

Reports:-

1. Law commission of India Report lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report243.pdf:-

2. The Malimath Committee Report www.498a.org/contents/.../Malimath

%20Committee_SelectedSections.pd...:-

18
3. National Commission for Women Report
https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/category/national-commission-for-women:-

19