498a, Ipc: Through the Looking Glass

Lawmaker Manu's oft-quoted statement, thatCode, has thus ruled that the decision of the
women are not worthy of freedom, exhaustivelySupreme Court gives powers to the High Court to
underscores the Indian Paradigm that was sought topermit compounding of matrimonial offences and the
be negated by the legislature, when it set out toHigh Court has powers to quash the criminal
pass the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No.proceedings, FIR or complaint.
46 of 1983, introducing for the first time, to a nationFor the woman armed with skewed intentions
seemingly never full of dowry deaths and cruelty tothough, and coupled with the executives inclination
married women, Section 498A the debutante in atowards rampant abuse of police powers, as detailed
code which lacked the intrinsic aspect of protectionunder the preceding sub-heading, this newfound
to the hapless victim of marriage in a patriarchaljudicial activism serves as the perfect artillery to
society. The 20th century had been the Dark Ageavenge and extort. Where the courts are allowing
for women the world over, who had been subjectedthe withdrawal of the case when the parties agree
to different standards than men. They had beento reconcile or settle case, in real terms it amounts
consistently oppressed in nearly all aspects of life,to the fact that if you pay up, the case goes away,
from political to personal, public to private. Womenif you dont you will get stuck with a criminal case
were always a weaker section of the society, whichthat will go on for years. Every year, close to 4,000
denied them basics such as education, nutrition andinnocent senior citizens are arrested under IPC
expression. Consequently, marriage too weighedSection 498A. Many retired elders have been ill
against them; statistical testimonies being the numbertreated, thrown out of their own homes and
of dowry-related harassment and domestic violencedeprived of their meager means of sustenance by
cases that are on record from that era. greedy or vengeful daughters-in-law. A visit to the
Section 498A of the IPC defined a new cognizableCrime Against Women Cell shall reveal hoards of Men
offence, namely, cruelty by husband or relatives ofand their relatives being tortured by the legal
husband. It is directed against the husband and/or hismachinery at the behest of women.
relative, who is guilty of the offence of subjectingThus we are witnessing an era of misconstruction at
the wife of such husband to cruelty, and can beits best, of the meaning and implication to be given
invoked by such wife, or daughter-in-law, or herto the compounding of this matrimonial offence.
relative, against the offenders. The term cruelty has
been given a wide berth, a protectively, non-evasiveNO-BAIL: A LOST BARGAIN
connotation in the explanation to the section, andThere are two kinds of offences, bailable and
includes both forms physical as well as mental. Thenon-bailable. 498A is non bailable. This means that the
offence is non-bailable, non-compoundable andmagistrate has the power to refuse bail and remand
cognizable on a complaint made to the police officera person to judicial or police custody. The process of
by the victim or by designated relatives.anticipatory bail, arrest, regular bail, filing of charge
The legislatures bona fide attempt in re-asserting,sheet, if any, have to follow the registration of an
through the passage of the aforesaid provision, aFIR. Given the nature of matrimonial disputes,
womans right to be treated with due care andstraightway registering an FIR, which triggers the
respect, has been successful in its own right. It iscriminal justice process, can place the parties in an
only now that women are learning to use the lawsinflexible position and thereafter less inclined to
put in place for their protection. This law has laid thereconcile their differences. Here comes in the
foundation for the demand of a civil law to protectnotorious Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell),
women and children. Domestic violence has sincewhich has been notified as a Police station. The
1983 been recognised as a crime and also constitutescomplaint, at the stage at which it is referred to the
a considerable part of the workload of police,CAW Cell by the police, has not been registered as
prosecutors and the courts.an FIR. The reference of the complaint to the CAW
However, 498A in leading the pack of Indiancell has increasingly gained recognition as supposedly
'women-protection laws', and in assuming that wiveshaving the effect of postponing the activation of the
are always honest victims of marital wrath, thereforecriminal justice process by facilitating dialogue
requiring no proof of their claims before initiatingbetween the parties with the help of the police. The
action against the accused, quite unwittinglySupreme Court has in some of its decisions
overlooks the possible emergence of a reverse trendrecognized the practice of the police conducting a
in the aforesaid scenario. The victim turning into thepreliminary enquiry before registering an FIR. Now the
abuser!CAW cell is not bound to follow the statutory
The section, today, has metamorphosized into aprocedure for investigation as under the Criminal
unilateral and indefeasible weapon in the hands ofProcedure Code, since it is only a pre-enquiry stage.
married women, which can be easily abused ifSo the cell devises its own methods to identify the
intended. The scope and limitations of the sectionnature of offence, collection of evidence and
have not been defined and demarcated which makesexamination of witnesses. Even vague, unspecific or
the situation worse. Many instances have come toexaggerated allegations bereft of any evidence of
light where the complaints are not bona fide andany physical or mental harm or injury inflicted upon
have been filed with an oblique motive.the woman cater to the cells quest to hound the
husbands with the threat of arrest making them run
POLICE PROCEDURES: FIRST IN LINE FOR THEhere and there and force them to hide at their
SCANNER!friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory
No arrest can be made because it is lawful for thebail. Thousands of such complaints and cases are
Police Officer to do so.pending and are being lodged day in and day out.
Offences are divided into cognizable andRead between the lines, this is the tyranny of
non-cognizable. By law, the police are duty bound tocorrupt CAW cells. Picture Jasbir Kaur Vs State ,
register and investigate a cognizable offence. 498A iswhere instead of making an effort to bring about
a cognizable offence. S.498A was intended, by theamicable settlement between the parties, the cell
legislature, to be invoked by way of privateblackmailed the husband with threats of registering
complaint to the Judicial Magistrate First Class or theimmediately an FIR against him. Leading dailies have
Metropolitan Magistrate, who will take cognizance ofbeen documenting statistical evidence of the number
the complaint, if it is found to be up to his judicialof fake cases before such CAW cells, and yet we
satisfaction, and issue summons to the oppositehave figures such as over 100,000 women being
party, directing them to apply for bail. Nowhere in thisarrested since 2004, u/s 498A! 
scheme, does a clause of unconditional arrest book aLosing our reins over the mushrooming CAW cells is
place. But evidently, the Police has pushed to theone aspect; the other is the sheer abandon of a
backward recesses of the systems memory, thecitizens A.21 right under the constitution. When the
fact that the existence of the power to arrest isbasic criterion that whether there is any prima facie
one thing, while the justification for its exercise isevidence to connect the accused with the crime is
quite another. The Police Officer must be able tooverlooked, and each time a bail plea is rejected
justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Noeven without giving opportunity of hearing to the
arrest can be made without a reasonable satisfactiondefence counsel, it is a sheer violation of the basic
reached after some investigation as to theprinciples of natural justice. The amended S.437(2),
genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and aCrPC lends support to the contention that in deciding
reasonable belief both as to the person''s complicitythe question of grant of bail, the seriousness of the
and even as so as to the need to effect arrest. Aoffence is of no consequence unless and until the
person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicionnexus between the accused and the crime is
of complicity in an offence. It is not imperative that inhighlighted by the prima facie evidence.
each and every cognizable offence, the accused
must be arrested merely because an F.I.R. has beenA RETURN-PATH TOWARDS LAW AND ORDER
lodged against him. The officer in charge, if comes toThe use of S.498A by reading in part or in isolation to
the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground foreach other, of the provisions of the Criminal
entering on an investigation, shall not proceed to(Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983, is resulting in a
investigate the allegations made in the report, and instark deviance from the literal meaning of the
such a situation, he shall inform accordingly to thesection. Exigent is a reversion to the golden rule of
informant.interpretation here. 498A was never developed as a
Thus even a special women-oriented law like theweapon of mass-destruction, but that is what it
498A itself, is untenable where statistics such as theeasily mirrors itself into, the moment the thin line
one indicating arrest of 30,000 innocent womenbetween judicial activism and gross misconstruction
annually based solely on the F.I.R lodged by a livingof the provision is ignored. To save such ignominy of
tortured daughter-in-law or sister-in-law, arethe well-intended provision, certain authoritative
concerned. The law was not designed as ultra viresobservations, such as the following, may be taken
the constitution, and never was its trueguidance of:
implementation intended to give way to any such1.  The Apex Court has set out in some detail, the
defence of the section.categories of cases where the High Court may
If any special treatment need be given to the saidexercise its power relating to cognisable offences to
section, it shall touch upon the fact that S.498Aprevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise
unlike regular penal laws is a matrimonial law. Levyingto secure the ends of justice. Significant among them
of other penal sections in addition to S.498A is a sureare:
indicator of abuse of the process to cause arrest for1.  
ulterior motives. This additional levying causes a2. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
repetition of charges, because the said section is notare so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
entirely bereft of the elements of dowry demand.of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
This is a clear abuse of police powers to arrest, byconclusion that there is sufficient ground for
abetting the woman and her side to authoritativelyproceeding against the accused.
implement her ulterior design to commit extortion in3. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
the garb of a prosecution for cruelty.with mala fides and where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
COMPOUNDING OF NON-COMPOUNDABLEwreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
OFFENCESto spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Based on whether a criminal complaint can beIf for the purpose of securing the ends of justice,
withdrawn, and investigations against the oppositequashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 of
party compromised to give effect to privateCr.P.C would not be a bar to the exercise of power
settlement between parties to the complaint,of quashing. The court considering the special
offences under the penal code are divided intofeatures of the matrimonial matters, has observed
compoundable and non-compoundable offences.that it is the duty of the court to encourage general
S.498A is a non-compoundable offence under thesettlement of matrimonial disputes U/S 498-A by
code. An offence under S.498A or any other offencequashing the criminal proceedings under that section.
under the Code which is not specifically enumeratedFurther, it would not be wrong to assume that the
in Section 320 of the Code cannot be compoundedpersonality of the offender as revealed by his age,
by the apex court in exercise of its powers undercharacter, antecedents and other circumstances and
Section 320 and by High Court in exercise of itsthe tractability of the offender to reform must
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.necessarily play the most prominent role in
However in a recent case of the Bombay High Court,determining the sentence to be awarded.
it was added to this position of law, that, theAn attitude that has the potential to uncover great
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Codeinstitutional damage is that justice is required to be
include powers to quash FIR, Investigation or anydone only in the courts. It should instead be taken to
criminal proceedings pending before the High Court orbe that any and every authority under the statute
any Courts subordinate to it and are of widehas to discharge its duties in a just manner,
magnitude and ramification. Such powers can beotherwise people will lose faith in the governance.
exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abusePublic authorities should stringently desist from
of the process of any court and to make suchunnecessarily burdening courts by placing before it
orders as may be necessary to give effect to anyfrivolous and fabricated cases.
order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a  4.  Section 498A is intended to protect the
given case. These powers are neither limited norwomen from cruelty of husband or his relatives. It
curtailed by any other provisions of the Codehas been widely reported that this provision has been
including Section 320 of the Code. The Court couldmisused and is also harsh as it is non-bailable and
exercise this power in offences of any kind, whethernon-compoundable. It is desirable to provide a chance
compoundable or non-compoundable. However, suchto the estranged spouse to come together and
inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly andtherefore it is proposed to make the offence under
with caution. Further, the Court should ensure thatSection 498A IPC, a compoundable one by inserting
object and purpose of passing any order in exercisethis Section in the Table under sub section (2) of
of its inherent powers should be confined to one ofSection 320 of CrPC, wherein it can be compounded
the three categories stated in Section 482 of thewith permission of the Court.However, as has been
Code.detailed above, the ordeal does not end at the
This fresh observation may be supplemented withwithdrawal of petition. To treat this malady, an
the legislatures intention to not apply ordinary judicialamendment to the effect of making the misuse of
procedure to the sensitive area of personalthe law as a valid ground for divorce, is suggested.
relationships. Litigation concerning or involving affairsFurthermore, all marriages ending up with false dowry
of the family, therefore, seems to require a specialcases should not be allowed alimony and child
approach in view of the serious emotional aspectscustody.
involved.A cardinal principal of the sentencing policy is that it is
A Division Bench of The Bombay High Court relyingbetter to forgive ten suspected criminals than to
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S.punish one innocent person but today, the IPC 498A
Joshi''s case and expanding the principles ofis powerfully working its way towards uprooting the
socio-welfare interpretation to the provisions of thevery foundation of any such Rule of Law.