Misuse of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860

I. Introduction

(A) Making of Anti- Dowry Legislation

“On April 24, 1959, the government introduced The Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1959. It was then referred to the joint committee after further discussion and the introduction of several amendments. Finally, the bill was considered at a joint sitting of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha, and it was passed on July 1, 1961. As a result, after a long wait, The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was ultimately enacted to combat the threat of dowry with the goal of eliminating the practise. This Act serves as both a remedial and a punitive act at the same time.²

Section 2 defines the term "dowry," and Section 3 specifies the penalties for both providing and receiving dowry. Dowry is described as any valuable security or property provided or agreed to be granted, either directly or indirectly.

(a) To the other party in a marriage by one of the parties, or

(b) On or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, by the parent of either party to the marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, the definition of Dowry does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons who are governed by Shariat.”³.

(B) Cruelty by Husband or His Relatives (Section 498a)

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 was enacted to combat the dowry threat. After a few years, however, it became clear that the act had failed badly due to its flaws. To meet the felt-needs of the time, the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 revised the Indian Penal Code and created a new Chapter XXA, comprising Section 498A.

Cruelty was added to the Indian Penal Code as an offence under Section 498A. It states that if a husband or his relatives treat the wife cruelly, they will be sentenced to prison for up to three years. In explanation (b), the Section defines cruelty as "any sort of harassment of a woman with the intent to compel her or any person linked to her to meet any unlawful demand of dowry" or "any kind of harassment with the intent to pursue her to commit suicide."⁴

(C) Literature Review

The topic which is selected for the research has a plethora of existing research and there are ample of texts on which one can rely. But the researcher’s methodology of the paper narrows the resources which are used for the paper. The researchers have stuck to basic texts which amplify the misuse of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In addition to the same secondary sources like case laws and reports from government also provide adequate data for the paper.

In order to justify the assumed hypothesis, the paper contains significant amount of primary data corroborated with secondary sources. The primary and secondary sources include the Indian Penal Code,1860 and some selections from S.N Mishra’s Indian Penal Code to understand the whole premise of the section 498A of the IPC. The number of cases under the section 498A by outcome are obtained through data released by National Crime Record Bureau.

(D) Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this research is:

• To search and discuss the concept of section 498A of the IPC,1860.
• To address the misuse of the section 498A
• To find out the shortcomings and various views of the Courts on the Misuse of section 498A by examining various case laws.
• To suggest possible means to prevent its misuse.

(E) Research Methodology

This study can be viewed as an experiment conducted at a library. This study is based on the collecting of data from primary and secondary sources. Below is a list of the methods used throughout the research article:

• Planning the whole research paper.
• Collection of respective papers through internet browsing.
• Concentrated study of data provided by various reports on which one can rely.
• Selecting the effective information that can be added in the paper.

II. Section 498a: the concept

“Section 498-A says that, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine”⁵

Cruelty under section 498-A is defined as any “wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the women”. It also includes harassment in order to get any of the demands fulfilled.⁶

“It is a “cognizable” offence, which means that once the victim or any of the other relatives files a complaint, the police will have no choice but to act. When someone is charged with dowry fraud, a non-bailable warrant is issued, and the police must take action against the husband and his family. The purpose of this provision was to prevent husbands and in-laws from being cruel to women and to penalise those who torture and harass their wives in order to force her or anybody associated to her to meet any unlawful demands or to drive her to commit suicide. Section 498A is a cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable offence.”⁷

Punishment under Section 498a

“All the convicted ones will be subjected to the imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or shall be liable to fine under Section 498A punishment. There are certain other provisions too which are interrelated to this IPC section, i.e., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, etc.

Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals in case of presumption of dowry death through brutal physical and mental torture to the woman. The applicability of this section remains for 7 years. So, it applies to the cases where the wife commits suicide or her death happens within the 7 years of the marriage.

Section 306 of IPC also plays a significant role in 498A matters. The person who abets a person to commit the suicide will be sentenced to the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years or can be charged with a fine.”⁸

III. Misuse of section 498a of ipc, 1860

“What was intended to be a benefit for women has turned into a curse for others. When we see a headline in the newspaper about a lady being tormented by her husband and her in-laws filing a complaint against them, we instinctively label the husband as the perpetrator and the wife as the victim. But how often do we consider the true victim in this case—the wife or the husband? In all cases, it is assumed that the male is the perpetrator. This is not, however, the case in every instance. Recently, the number of cases in which the spouse and family have been wrongly accused of a crime under section 498-A has increased across the country.”⁹

Does this imply that women are abusing anti-dowry legislation? “Perhaps yes, because there have been reports of family members extorting money, blackmail, and women making false allegations. What began as a legal immunity has turned into a devastating legal weapon in the hands of women, who use it to extract personal vendettas against their husbands and families. As a result, several articles in Part III of the Constitution, known as the Fundamental Rights, aim to defend women's interests. However, this does not mean that the male members, who are an important part of the group, should be overlooked or dismissed. When charges are filed against a husband or a family member, they are frequently arrested and their bail is denied because the offence is non-bailable, non-compoundable, and non-cognizable.”¹⁰

IV. Shortcomings in the section 498a

“The laws have the following flaws, which make them prone to be misapplied or misused:

• There is a little gender bias in the laws because cruelty and domestic abuse against men are not recognised. Extortion or violence against males in domestic relationships is rarely reported to the police in India, while filing a complaint under section 498A (when a woman is the aggrieved party) is common.
• Corruption in the police service, which frequently arrests innocent people without conducting a thorough investigation.
• Gifts given by the bride's parents to capture the bridegroom's heart are frequently channelled into a dowry tunnel.
• There are no consequences or punishments for making false complaints or perjury.”¹¹

Number of Cases under Section 498A by Outcome: Data by NCRB

• According to NCRB data, "the number of convictions in 2018 was the lowest in ten years." Except in 2016, the number of convictions under this section ranged from 6000 to 8000 every year between 2006 and 2017. Between 2006 and 2018, the year 2018 saw the fewest number of convictions under 498A. In 2018, there were just 4982 convictions reported. Up to 2016, the number of acquittals under this section witnessed an increase of 60% compared to 2006. Since then, the number acquitted dropped to 34,153 in 2017 and to the lowest in the decade which is 31,691 in 2018.
• The number of cases withdrawn has gradually increased over the same time period. The number of cases withdrawn (or compromised) grew by 70% between 2006 and 2018.”¹²

The conviction rate has dropped to 13%.

• A comparison of the conviction rates for all IPC offences and cases under 498A shows that the conviction rate for 498A cases has been steadily decreasing. According to data, the conviction rate for all IPC crimes fell from 42.9 percent in 2006 to 38.5 percent in 2012. However, between 2013 and 2018, the rate steadily grew, eventually reaching 50%.
• On the other hand, the conviction rate for 498A cases has dropped dramatically, from 21.9 percent in 2006 to 13% in 2018. In 2018, the conviction rate for 498A cases was nearly a fourth of the total conviction rate for all IPC crimes. In 2018, only one out of every seven cases under Section 498A resulted in a conviction. Cases under 498A have the lowest conviction rate of any IPC offence.
• While the conviction rate for Section 498A cases has been among the bottom four in each of the 13 years (2006 to 2018), it has been the lowest in four of those years and the lowest in five others. It was placed 54th out of 55 categories in 2018.¹³

Thus, the data itself shows that how section 498A is prone to misuse.

V. Judicial pronouncements on misuse of section 498a, ipc and recent developments

Preeti Gupta Versus State of Jharkhand¹⁴

“A high proportion of complaints reflect inflated versions of the incident, according to the Apex Court. In a high majority of instances under section 498A, the propensity of over implication is also evident. All parties involved suffer greatly as a result of the criminal trials. Even a complete acquittal in the trial may not be enough to erase the profound wounds of ignominy's agony. Unfortunately, a great number of these complaints have not only filled the courts, but have also caused widespread social turmoil, jeopardising the society's peace, harmony, and happiness. It is critical for the legislature to take into account informed public opinion as well as pragmatic realities and make required revisions to the applicable legal requirements.

Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand and Ors.¹⁵

Unfortunately, the provision has been abused by Investigating and Prosecuting Agencies and exploited by women and their relatives to such an extent that it has proven to be ineffective in curbing the evil of dowry as well as disciplining the husband and his relatives to treat the bride or wife in a humane and humane manner and give the bride or wife proper respect and dignity, according to the Court. The judge said, "This court has even dealt with the bail applications and prosecution of children only because their names appeared in the wife's complaint." In certain circumstances, even the husband's grandparents in their eighties and nineties are subjected to this horrific predicament.

Rajesh Sharma & others v. State of U. P¹⁶

The Supreme Court issued the following instructions in this case:

• The District Legal Services Authorities must form at least one committee in each district, consisting of three paralegals/volunteers/social workers/other citizens ready to work. Such constitution and working will be reviewed at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of District Legal Services Authority.
• No committee member can be called as witness.
• Any complaint received from the police/the Magistrate under Section 498A of IPC must be referred to and looked into by the committee.
• The committee’s report will be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred within one month from the date of receiving the complaint. No arrest can be made before that.
• The Investigating Officer for complaints under Section 498A should get four months of training for whatever length of time (not less than one week) is deemed acceptable.
• When a bail application is filed with a day's notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, it must be resolved on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items cannot be used as a basis for bail if the wife's or minor children's maintenance or other rights can be maintained.
• Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court can grant exemption and permit video conferencing.

The Court stated that the overwhelming number of cases filed under Section 498A on frivolous or fraudulent issues is cause for worry. Involving the civil society in the administration of justice, in addition to guiding the investigative officers and trial courts, can be one of the measures to correcting this issue.

VI. Suggestions to prevent the misuse

• “There must be some provision of punishment for fraudulent and falsified complaints to discourage misuse of anti-dowry laws and to give true application of these enactments.”
• All officials involved in falsely accusing women and their families should face criminal prosecution.
• Before registering a dowry case, the police should thoroughly investigate the complaint. Only the primary accused should have an arrest warrant issued, and only after cognizance has been taken. Innocent members of the bridegroom's family should not be detained.
• A national network of family counselling centres should be established to assist wrongly accused and disgruntled families. Legal Services should play a significant role in encouraging amicable settlement and achieving better and more results against matrimonial cruelty.
• The provision of Cruelty shall be made gender neutral to satisfy the changing dimensions of society. The Act's definition of mental cruelty is ambiguous, leaving room for abuse. To close the loopholes, the term of cruelty should be clarified.
• The Section 498-A offence should be deemed compoundable. If the wife realises, she has made a mistake and wishes to return to her marital home, she must be given the opportunity to compromise.”

VII. Conclusion

“Section 498A was created and incorporated into the legal system with the goal of protecting women from cruelty, harassment, and other crimes. However, when cross investigations were conducted to determine the efficacy of these measures, the number of acquittals outnumbered convictions. As a result, the Supreme Court, which originally enacted 498A with the intention of protecting women from cruelty, now views it as legal terrorism. Because Section 498A is being abused, its credibility is eroding. That is one of the numerous reasons why it is referred to as an anti-male law.”

On the basis of the above study, it may be concluded that: "The law, like a coin, has two sides." It may be praised by one segment of society while being panned by another. Similarly, section 498-A, which benefits women, can be a scourge for the male population.

Although the number of crimes against women has not decreased significantly as a result of anti-dowry legislation, this does not give women the ability to abuse the laws in order to satisfy their thirst for vengeance. The laws that have been passed to benefit women must be used in that way, and women must understand that immunity is required, and they must adhere to the spirit of the law.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a LLM Student at School of Law, Humanities and Social Sciences, Rashtriya Raksha University, Gujarat, India.

2. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961). ↩

3. ibid. ↩

4. Section 498A, Explanation b, Indian Penal Code,1860. ↩

5. Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860. ↩

6. S.N Misra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 21^st ed. ,1 Aug 2018, p.256. ↩

7. ibid. ↩

8. Varsha,498A misuse, https://bnblegal.com/article/498a-use-and-misuse/, Nov 4 2019 ↩

9. Shreya Chettri, Misuse of Anti Dowry Law, Journal on contemporary issues of law, V3 Issue 12. ,2019. ↩

10. ibid at p.2. ↩

11. ibid. ↩

12. Pavithra K, Conviction rate of 498A, https://factly.in/the-conviction-rate-of-sec-498a-cases-falls-as-conviction-rate-of-ipc-crimes-increases/, 20 Jan 2020 ↩

13. ibid. ↩

14. Criminal appeal no. 1512 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009) ↩

15. CriLJ 2759, 104 (2003) DLT 824, II (2003) DMC 328, 2003 (69) DRJ 6 ↩

16. criminal appeal no. 1265 of 2017[arising out of special leave petition (crl.) no.2013 of 2017] ↩