Section 498A of IPC: Legal Terrorism

The much exalted Section 498A (the Section) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that came into being in the year 1983, was meant for addressing the oppressions that the Indian patriarchal society had imposed on married women in the context of accumulation of dowry over the decades. Considering the extreme prevalence rate of reported cases for cruelty against married women in terms of forcing married women (through physical and psychological abuses) made it essential for the legal system of India to eventually introduce the Section under the penal provision that was compounded with provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (Bhandari, 2019). It should be noted that, almost four out of every five domestic violence or cruelty against women cases in India have been observed to be related to dowry. The menacing practice of giving and receiving as well as demanding dowry has been considered a convention among many ethnicities dwelling in India. It should be taken into account that as dowry still claims among the top most social crimes in India related to physical and mental torture to a married woman by her husband or in-laws for the sake of obtaining money or other valuable assets from the wife’s family members, the random implementation of Section 498A gradually became a fashion and it came into vogue like a wildfire which is widespread. Considering the protection and well-being of married women in India the Government of India eventually amended the Indian Penal Code on 26 December 1983 to accommodate a new Section 498 (A) under Chapter XX-A, Of Cruelty By Husband Ore Relatives of Husband against a married woman. But it should be highlighted that the applicability of the Section is majorly related to the occurrence of incident of extortion of any kind of property by subjecting a married woman to cruelty. Unfortunately, Section 498 A, which was meant for bringing social justice for married women, gradually came into vogue as a rogue means of appeasing personal grievances or other intentions on the part of the married woman to punish her husband and his relatives.

Quite pathetically, the Section’s introduction and insertion was though meant for acting as an element of deterrence; instances of false and exaggerated allegations against husbands and their relatives have now been rampantly proved as a means of exacting revenge by disgruntled wives, some of whom have been found to be involved in extramarital relationships. This very nature of the use of the law against married men now has eventually come to be known as Anti-Male law that had the record of paying no heed to the wretched condition of the innocent husbands who had been targeted by their wives to meet their personal purposes that may include adultery. In this context it should be taken into account that even though the lawmakers, with good intentions, designed and inserted Section 498A into the legal architecture for protecting women from domestic violence, primarily related to dowry; now-a-days cross investigations are thoroughly performed to check the viability of the provisions considering the fact that, the number of acquittals had been more in comparison to the convictions (Bhandari, 2019). That is one primary reason why the Supreme Court of India is now reconsidering the efficacy and purpose of Section 498A and conveying the Court’s distrust on the legality of the Section has termed 498A as LEGAL TERRORISM against married men. Moreover, it is for the information of those men who had been victims of atrocities committed against them by their wives and their family members, that it must be stated that, due to the excessive misuse of Section 498A and its dwindling credibility the Apex Court of India and the judiciary has taken “cognizance of large scale misuse” of Section 498A. In this respect the Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand gave a verdict that warranted a serious relook on the provisions of Section 498A and its illegitimate use. The Supreme Court, warranted by the legislature, eventually gave the verdict that, “It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incidents are reflected in a large number of complaints” (Bhandari, 2019).

Moreover, it should be highlighted that, “The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads” (Bhandari, 2019). Quite interestingly it has been observed that about 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which “on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in an acquittal” (Bhandari, 2019). Moreover, to make the citizenry of India more acquainted with the misuse of Section 498A as a LEGAL TERRORISM, the Supreme Court of India after observing the verdict given by the Honorable Delhi High Court in Chandra Bhan v. State (order dated 04/08/2008 in Bail application №1627/2008) introduced some crucial steps to be followed to keep at bay the exaggerated and rampant misuse of Section 498A of IPC, and the steps are:

1. FIR should not be registered in a routine manner.
2. The endeavor of the police should be to scrutinize complaints carefully and then register FIR.
3. No case under section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl. DCP.
4. Before the registration of FIR, all possible efforts should be made for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement, then, necessary steps should, in the first instance, be taken to ensure the return of stridhan and dowry articles to the complainant.
5. The arrest of the main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
6. In the case of collateral accused such as in-laws, prior approval of DCP should be there on the file

All these efforts made by the Supreme Court have been hailed by the Men Right Movements’ proponents and Associations in India to save myriads of innocent married men to commit suicide owing to social stigmatization that previously Section 498A used to bring upon the convict. Hence, demonstrating an egalitarian legal approach towards the implementation and misuse of Section 498A, the Supreme Court and the Legislature has provided options to married men whose reputation has been defamed with false accusations under Section 498A. The options are as follows:

• The husband can file a case of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Under Section 9 of CPC, the husband can file an application for damage recovery which he and his family have undergone for the false accusations of cruelty and harassment.
• Section 182 of IPC is one of the prevalently used measures against false 498A cases. When the authority finds that the averments made were bogus, the culprit is subjected to imprisonment of 6 months or fine or both under Section 182 of IPC. The person will be charged on the grounds of misleading the judiciary with false information.

Men Rights activists in India are of the opinion that the much needed steps taken by the Supreme Court to counter the LEGAL TERRORISM OF Section 498 of IPC would eventually bring about justice ensuring that justice is delivered surpassing corruptions and illegitimate accusations.

References

Bhandari, A. (2019). 498A Use and Misuse. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://bnblegal.com/article/498a-use-and-misuse/

Nagpal, S. (2019). Misuse of IPC Section 498A. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://www.lawtendo.com/blogs/misuse-of-ipc-section-498a