Section 498A: Balancing Gender Justice and Protection Against Misuse
International Family Lawyer || LLM Candidate at University of California, School of Law.
May 26, 2023
The Supreme Court of India had termed IPC Section 498A as 'Legal Terrorism' way back in the year 2005, little did they know that their own words would be used to demean the Indian judiciary, as people blindly ignore the changes that have taken place. In recent times, you will notice most judges have spoken about their ruling in favor of the husband and against fake cases.
What is 498a?
Section 498A refers to a specific provision under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. It aims to protect women from harassment and abuse within the institution of marriage. The section criminalizes actions such as physical or mental cruelty, harassment for dowry, and subjecting a woman to any form of cruelty or harassment for extracting dowry from her or her family. It is intended to safeguard the rights and well-being of married women and provide legal recourse in cases of mistreatment within a marital relationship.
A lot of people who are not familiar with the Indian legal system and judiciary tend to demean it and instill fear in the minds of men against the judiciary in India, especially those residing abroad.
Here are brief summaries of leading judgments of the Supreme Court that addresses the issue of illegal arrest and misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpika Kalra & Ors. (2020)
In this case, the husband had deposited stridhan articles and a pay order with the investigation officer, but the wife refused to accept them. Consequently, the items were deposited at the police station.
The Supreme Court, on appeal against the High Court order, upheld the finding of the High Court without interference.
It was determined that the FIR filed in 2015 was time-barred, as it was filed more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra and Shilpika Kalra and the husband's filing of a divorce petition in 2009.
The High Court's reasoning for quashing the proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) was considered justified and did not warrant interference from the Supreme Court.
Additionally, since the husband had deposited the stridhan and pay order, which the wife refused to accept, charges under Section 406 of the IPC were not applicable.
The Supreme Court concluded that the filing of the criminal complaint appeared to be a pressure tactic employed by the complainant against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, constituting an abuse of the court process, and thus, the complaint was quashed in its entirety.
Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and another (1989)
Here the Supreme Court acknowledged the amendments made to the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Penal Code to combat dowry deaths.
The legislature introduced Sections 113-A and 113-B in the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 498-A and 304-B in the Indian Penal Code to address the alarming number of suicides and deaths caused by dowry-related issues.
These provisions allow courts to presume abetment of suicide if a woman has committed suicide within seven years of marriage and has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative.
The amendments reflect the legislature's recognition of the need for additional legal measures to address the growing menace of dowry deaths.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court discussed the concept of conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering a First Information Report (FIR).
The Court clarified that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to determine the truthfulness of the information received but to assess whether the information discloses a cognizable offense.
The Court provided the following examples of cases where a preliminary inquiry may be conducted:
(a) Matrimonial disputes or family disputes(b) Commercial offenses (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is a significant delay in reporting the matter, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay (e.g., over 3 months).
These examples provided by the Court are not an exhaustive list but rather illustrative of situations where a preliminary inquiry may be considered appropriate.
The decision on whether to conduct a preliminary inquiry or register an FIR depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case
D.K. Basu v. the State of W.B.
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to protect the rights of arrestees. These guidelines include:
Police personnel involved in the arrest and interrogation should wear visible identification tags.
A memo of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest, attested by at least one witness, and countersigned by the arrestee, containing the date and time of arrest.
The arrestee has the right to have a friend, relative, or person known to them informed of the arrest unless the witness to the arrest is such a person.
The police must notify the time, place, and custody venue of the arrest to the arrestee's friend or relative living outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organization within 8 to 12 hours.
The arrestee must be informed of their right to have someone informed of their arrest or detention.
An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention, disclosing the name of the informed friend and the details of the police officials in custody.
The arrestee should be examined at the time of arrest, and any injuries present on their body must be recorded in an inspection memo.
The arrestee should be medically examined every 48 hours by a trained doctor appointed by the Director of Health Services.
Copies of all arrest-related documents must be sent to the local magistrate for their record.
The arrestee may be allowed to meet their lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the process.
Police control rooms should be established at district and state headquarters to communicate arrest and custody information within 12 hours of the arrest, displayed on a notice board.
Preeti Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No.1387 of 2019)
The dispute revolved around whether the appellant-wife could file a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at her place of residence.
The High Court held that no cause of action had arisen at her place of residence.
However, the Supreme Court, in line with its judgment in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2019), clarified that the courts at the place where the wife seeks shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty by the husband or his relatives would have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A.
Consequently, the criminal appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and any pending applications were disposed of.
B.S. Joshi and others v. the State of Haryana and another (2003)
Supreme Court emphasized the objective behind the introduction of Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court stated that the purpose of including Chapter XX-A and Section 498A in the IPC was to prevent the torture of women by their husbands or relatives.
Section 498A was enacted to punish husbands and their relatives who harass or torture their wives to coerce them or their relatives to fulfill unlawful dowry demands. The Court rejected a hyper-technical view that could undermine the interests of women and the objective of this provision.
The Court emphasized that the exercise of inherent power to quash proceedings should not prevent women from settling their disputes earlier. It stated that such an approach would go against the purpose of Chapter XX-A of the IPC, which seeks to protect women and prevent harassment and torture in relation to dowry demands.
Overall, the Court's observations highlighted the importance of interpreting and applying Section 498A in a manner that upholds the protection of women and prevents the misuse of hyper-technicalities that could undermine the intent of the provision.
Rupali Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2019)
Supreme Court addressed the question of whether courts located in the local area where the wife's parental house is situated have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court emphasized that this question is not related to the provisions of Section 178(b) or (c) but rather to the applicability of the exception provided by Section 179.
The Court referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Law (2nd Amendment) Act, 1983, which introduced Section 498A, and highlighted that the section criminalizes the act of subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or his relatives.
The Court held that courts at the place where the wife seeks shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty by the husband or his relatives would have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A, depending on the factual circumstances.
Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P.
Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC, which deals with cruelty towards married women. The guidelines include:
Constitution of Family Welfare Committees in each district.
Referring complaints to the committee for review and report.
No automatic arrest until the committee's report is received.
Designated Investigating Officers for Section 498A cases.
Settlement of cases by the District and Sessions Judge in matrimonial disputes.
Bail considerations focus on prima facie truth, individual roles, and the protection of rights.
Limited use of impounding passports and Red Corner Notices.
Clubbing of connected cases for a comprehensive view.
Exemption from personal appearance, allowing video conferencing.
These guidelines do not apply to cases involving physical injuries or death.
Bibi Parwana Khatoon @ Parwana Khatoon v. the State of Bihar
it was alleged that the husband and his relatives killed the wife by setting her on fire. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had erred in convicting the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased.
The evidence of their involvement in torturing the deceased could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and they resided in a different village with no common intention with the husband.
As a result, their convictions were set aside.
Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharati
Supreme Court dealt with a complaint filed by Bharati against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court noted that the complaint lacked specific details regarding the role played by the appellants (husband's parents) in the alleged offense and did not clearly establish their involvement.
Additionally, the court considered that the husband had already passed away, leaving only the in-laws as the accused.
Therefore, the court found it unjust to allow the prosecution to continue against the elderly parents based on a vague and general complaint.
Consequently, the court quashed the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Preeti Gupta & Anr v. the State of Jharkhand
Manisha accused her husband and his relatives of demanding dowry and physically assaulting her.
Preeti Gupta, the sister-in-law, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand.
The court noted that it is not uncommon for husbands and their immediate relatives to be implicated in such cases, and determining the truth can be challenging even after the conclusion of the trial.
The court emphasized the need for caution and pragmatism in dealing with matrimonial cases.
In this particular case, the allegations against the husband's distant relatives who lived in different cities and rarely visited the complainant's place required careful scrutiny.
As the charges could not be substantiated, the court quashed all charges against the appellants in the interest of justice.
Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. v. Monica
Monica filed a complaint against her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law under Section 498A of the IPC.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the essential elements of the offense were not fulfilled.
The court found that the actions of the mother-in-law, such as kicking, calling daughter in law's mother a liar, and threatening divorce, did not amount to cruelty under Section 498A. though it can be constituted in other offenses.
Similarly, the allegations like poisoning the son's ear and giving used suits of the daughter to the daughter-in-law also do not amount to cruelty under section 498a.
Consequently, the court concluded that no case was established against the appellants under Section 498A of the IPC.
Manju Ram Kalita v. the State of Assam
The wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical torture by her husband, leading her to leave their matrimonial home and reside with her father.
She later discovered that her husband had remarried.
The husband was charged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for subjecting his wife to cruelty.
The apex court, in its judgment, referred to various precedents and emphasized that the definition of "cruelty" may vary depending on the specific statutory provision in question.
In the context of Section 498A of the IPC, the court held that the conduct of the husband must be compared with the likelihood of the woman committing suicide, among other factors, to establish cruelty.
It was further emphasized that cruelty must be demonstrated to have been inflicted continuously or at least in close proximity to the lodging of the complaint.
Petty quarrels or minor disagreements would not fall under the purview of "cruelty" as defined in Section 498A.
Based on these observations, the court set aside the conviction order under Section 498A of the IPC, indicating that the evidence presented did not establish the required elements of cruelty as defined in the context of that provision.
Kans Raj v. the State of Punjab
Supreme Court observed that the in-laws or other relatives cannot be held responsible for the demand of dowry solely based on the fault of the husband.
Accusations against persons other than the husband must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court found that the parents of the deceased were trying to involve other relatives in their attempt to secure convictions, which weakened the prosecution's case even against the actual accused.
As a result, the charge sheet and criminal prosecution against the in-laws were dismissed.
In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI
Supreme Court held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses dowry-related offenses, is constitutional and valid.
The court acknowledged that while the provision aims to prevent the dowry menace, there have been instances of false complaints and personal vendettas.
The court expressed the need for legislative measures to address the misuse of the provision and emphasized that the courts must handle such situations within the existing legal framework.
The court also warned against the potential for new forms of legal terrorism through the misuse of this provision.
Joginder Kumar v. the State of U.P.
Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent illegal arrests.
The court emphasized that no arrest should be made routinely based solely on allegations against a person.
Police officers should conduct some investigation to establish the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint before making an arrest.
Arresting a person and denying their liberty is a serious matter, and there must be reasonable justification and belief in the person's complicity in the offense to warrant an arrest.
The court also suggested that, except in heinous offenses, police officers could issue a notice to the person to attend the police station instead of making an immediate arrest.
The court stressed the need to balance individual rights with societal interests and obligations, emphasizing the importance of considering the rights, liberties, and privileges of both the individual and society when making decisions about arrests.
Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar
Supreme Court noted that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is often misused by disgruntled wives as a weapon rather than a shield.
The court expressed concern over the arbitrary arrests made under this provision, stating that arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom, and leaves lasting scars.
The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising the power of arrest and highlighted the distinction between the power to arrest and the justification for its use.
The court also referred to Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed the police and magistrates to follow specific guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests and detention.
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Another v. UOI Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors.
Supreme Court overturned certain directions issued in the case of Rajesh Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. and Anr.
The directions relating to the constitution of Family Welfare Committees and their powers were deemed impermissible.
Instead, the court directed investigating officers to be guided by established principles regarding the arrest.
The Director-General of Police of each state was also instructed to ensure rigorous training for investigating officers handling cases under Section 498-A IPC.
Settlements could be approached to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following the law laid down in Gian Singh.
The writ petitions and criminal appeal were disposed of with further modifications.
Shobha Rani v. Medhukar Reddi (1988)
The Supreme Court discussed the concept of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court highlighted that Section 498A introduced a new dimension to the concept of cruelty.
According to the explanation provided in Section 498A, any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide, cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical), or harass her with the intention to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security would constitute cruelty.
The Court held that evidence of harassment to the wife to meet unlawful demands for money is necessary to establish the offense of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
It further clarified that cruelty does not need to be intentional, willful, or deliberate. The absence of intention does not make a difference if the act complained of can be regarded as cruelty in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs.
In the case of Noorjahan v. State (2008), the Supreme Court explained that to invoke Section 498A of the IPC, the consequences of cruelty, which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical), need to be established. The legislative intent behind the insertion of Section 498A was to combat the menace of dowry deaths and cruelty to married women by husbands, in-laws, and relatives.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Damodar More (2017), the Court held that for invoking the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide), the prosecution must establish that the deceased committed suicide as a result of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC, and that the act of suicide was abetted by the accused.
In Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar (2011), the Court held that in cases where the offense of harassment or ill-treatment is a continuing one and has been committed in multiple local areas, the jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case lies with the Magistrate in any of those local areas. In such cases, Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is attracted.
These cases provide important interpretations and explanations of the provisions related to cruelty, abetment of suicide, and jurisdiction in cases of harassment and ill-treatment under Section 498A of the IPC.
Allahabad High Court introduced guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A. Here are the guidelines:
1. No arrest will be made for the first two months after an FIR is registered under Section 498A. This period is known as the cooling period.
2. The complaint will be forwarded to the Family Welfare Committee. This committee will assess the situation and determine what is right and wrong during the two-month period.
3. If there is any physical abuse or injury to the woman, an arrest can be made even within the two-month period.
4. The Family Welfare Committee will consist of four senior members from both families. They will gather statements, examine both sides of the story, and submit a report to the police station. Allowing both parties two months provides an opportunity for reconciliation.
5. An experienced investigation officer (IO) will conduct the investigation. The IO must receive at least one week of specific training to handle such cases. If the officer is not trained, they may not make an immediate arrest
In conclusion, the Indian judiciary has taken significant steps to address the issue of false cases and misuse of Section 498A. The recent judgments and guidelines provide a framework to ensure fairness and protection of rights. It is essential for both men and women to approach legal matters with trust in the system and seek the assistance of competent lawyers who can navigate the complexities of the law. By upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality, the Indian legal system can continue to evolve and serve justice to all.
When faced with a situation requiring legal assistance, it is advisable to seek the guidance of a qualified lawyer, as opposed to relying on self-professed legal expertise or advice from non-professionals, to ensure that your best interests are protected.