498a Good News for the 498a accused.

Good News for the 498a accused.

Good news,  husband has been acquitted of the charge of 498a of indian penal code i.e. physically and mentally torturing his wife for dowry and 406 i.e. criminal breach of trust by a Delhi court. The noble court of  Metropolitan Magistrate Mona Tardi Kerketta said, the cause of dispute between them was incompatibility and quarrelsome nature of the woman.This has nothing to do with dowry demand cruelty 498a of indian penal code

Metropolitan Magistrate M.T. Kerketta absolved the Delhi resident of the charges under sections 498A i.e.cruelty in connection with dowry and 406 i.e.criminal breach of trust of  Indian Penal Code, while relying on statement made by the man and the children, who said the complainant had a temperament problem of the woman.

 The judge in the order said, "The court is of the view that the accused (husband) has been able to demonstrate that the root cause of dispute was incompatibility and quarrelsome nature of the complainant and not the demand of dowry,".

The family members of the husband who were also accused in the case (498a ipc), were earlier discharged by the court. While acquitting the man, the court also said that there was a delay in lodging the complaint too.

"Delay in lodging the FIR, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought," the court said. This can be found in my earlier post where Madhusudan Rao vs Andhra Pradesh govt in 304b of ipc.

"It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the complaint was made to police more than 18 days after she was allegedly thrown out of the house and about 15-16 years after cruelties, which are claimed to have been committed since the very beginning of the marriage.

The FIR had been lodged on 1-09-2006, the woman had lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws for physically and mentally harassing her for dowry 498a of indian penal code.

I hail the justice for delivering the rational judgement in respect of the sensitive issue like this 498a indian penal code.

Misuse of 498a

False implication u/s 498a ipc

Bench of Chief Justice H. L.attu and A.K.Sikri said, in on a decision "For no fault, the in-laws, especially old parents of the husband, are taken to jail the moment a false complaint is filed against them by a woman under Section 498A indian penal code. By roping in in-laws without a reason and for settling a score with the husband, the false and exaggerated 498A ipc complaints are causing havoc to marriages".

The Apex Court said that false complaints under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (ipc) against innocent in-laws alleging cruelty and harassment at matrimonial homes were increasingly making the husbands adamant not to take back their wives at home.

These comments are very very significant as this section 498a of Indian Penal Code is ruining too many marriages now a days where apart from filing a case a woman has nothing to prove. On the contrary a husband and his relative has to prove the thing that they have not done how ironic. Now it is responsibility of the citizen of this country to use these gender bias laws very seriously not arbitrarily.

Misuse of section 498a of ipc is inevitable if this kind of bias exists.

Fourteen Long years

One more rational decision under section 304b and 498a of Indian Penal Code.

Delhi court acquitted Dinesh along with his other four family members of the charges of cruelly treating his wife for dowry death u/s 498a and 304b of ipc.

ADJ Pulastya Pramachala absolved East Delhi residents Dinesh Kumar Gautam, an air force employee with four other family members.

Dinesh and his family members were charged for the offences of woman subjected to cruelty by husband and his family members under section 498A Indian Penal Code and dowry death under section 304B  of the Indian Penal Code.

The judge said, "I find the allegations of demand and consequential cruelty and harassment are not based on any concrete facts and they have remained like general and vague allegations without having any corroboration,", while freeing the accused husband Dinesh and in-laws of deceased Savita, who was found hanging in her matrimonial house in 2000.

The court seriously relied on the statement made by Savita's daughter, who was present in the house when this unpleasant incident happened. daughter of the deceased stated that neither there was any dowry demand nor any such dispute between her grandmother and her mother had taken place.

"A tussle between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, on grounds other than those related to dowry or other unlawful demands, is not a very uncommon feature of Indian households."

Society and time has changed a lot during the last few years how significant is the relation between daughter in law and mother in law is to be taken in to consideration.

Though the court stated in it’s judgement "However, all such tussles cannot be given color of an act of cruelty, so as to drive the victim to commit suicide, nor such tussle can be treated to be cruelty or harassment related with any unlawful demand".

The court observed that the suicide note of Savita did not allege any cruelty or dowry demand by her husband and in-laws. "From the suicide note, I find that there is no whisper of any kind of demand being made by the accused persons from the deceased (Savita). According to court since Savita was not happy for some reasons in her matrimonial house this is not appropriate to implicate the husband and his family members for convicted them for that they have not done.

According to the prosecution, on November 4, 2000, the woman was found hanging at her matrimonial house and her mother-in-law and other family members informed her parents who then lodged a complaint under section 498A Indian Penal Code and dowry death under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code with the police.

Savita‘s father told police that Savita (deceased) was harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry demands. Allegation made that Savita died after the torture of her in-laws. The mother and neighbours of the woman also deposed on the same lines but the noble court was not satisfied with the argument made by prosecution.

Defence stated that Savita and Dinesh were not residing with other family members who were made accused with Dinesh as he used to keep getting posted in various regions due to the nature of his job and hence the question of harassment did not arise and thus genuine.

The judge observed that on being aware of the fact that she was being beaten or harassed by her in-laws, why Savita’s father who himself is a business man didn't he take any action. "I am unable to comprehend that how could prosecution witness 2 (father of the deceased) remain action-less despite being told about such serious allegations by his daughter," the judge said.

In my opinion now a days it has become a tradition when a women dies unnaturally with in seven years of marriage her parental side files a case under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and if a women is not happy with her husband and other family members, falsely implicate the in laws under section 498a of Indian Penal Code.

Please take care of the sensitive gender bias issues in very delicate manner.

Don't apprehand to be arrested under 498A

 Don't apprehand to be arrested under 498A if you are innocent

According to Apex Court of this country women are using dowry prohibition laws to harass husband and his family and police is mechanically arresting the husband and relatives of his just on information using section 498A of IPC of this country.

As every one knows that these cases are most of the times proven to be false so does the Apex Court. In view of this Supreme Court of India delivered an order and directed to concerning authorities to make certain checklist before arresting the husband and his other family members. This checklist is provided under section 41 of CrPC. In this criminal procedure code it is stated for the investigating agency to first check 9 points before arresting the accused.
 

 Two judges bench of Apex court comprising C K Prasad and P C Ghose issued the order in which they have ordered the investigating agencies as well as the lower judiciary to use this checklist to prevent misuse of 498A of indian penal code.

This check-list will also be used for  all offences, which are punished with a prison term less than 7 years. 

 

rational judgement of 498a and 304b

 498A Dowry Demand and Cruelty304B Dowry Death

New Delhi

I praise Justice Pawan Kumar Jain for delivering a rational decision on a very sensitive, responsible and volatile issues i.e 498A Dowry Demand and Cruelty and 304B Dowry Death .  It would definitely be relief to an innocent man Mohan Lal and his parents for not being punished for what they have not done !!!! that too under section 498A  and 304B  of indian penal code.

According to Justice Jain prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was tortured soon before her death. Case was registered in mechanical manner by the father of the deceased. Should not concerned court take self cognizance over the false case registered by father of the deceased misguiding the court and society and defaming a socially responsible family by dragging them in to shameful case under section 498A Dowry Demand and Cruelty and 304B Dowry Death.

The detailed order can be found in delhi court.

498A Threat to men

498a indian penal code

Judicial system is made for justice not for threat  today i want to discuss  how 498a and 304B of indian penal code are treated in lower judiciary now a days.

But this gender bias law is so viral fatal that lower judicial system of this country is not immune to this and the judges of sessions courts are not gutsy enough to pass rational judgement on this issue i.e. 498a and 304B (Dowry Death) ipc. I have come across so many judgements in which so called accused, the husband, is being victimized. I can not understand why  people of this country don't stand up against use of this law as torturing machine.

 I have quoted the judgement of the honorable judges of apex court in which they have clearly stated that it is responsibility of the prosecution to prove that deceased had been subjected to cruelty but now a days in sessions courts responsibility has been shifted to innocent accused to prove the things he has not done in 304B and 498A ipc. How a man can prove a thing he has not done. 

A man and his family lives together and live a happy life and suddenly, accidently if something happens to wife. Man has to answer but if reciprocal happens society speaks on woman's behalf what a irony it is. we are taught to treat respect women but when a man comes to crisis these women.....................

I request people of this country to raise your voice to save innocent men whose life, career, social status all are at stake and jeopardized by this lethal weapon called 304B and 498A ipc.

498a indian penal code

498a indian penal code

 

 

New Delhi, July 2: The Supreme Court today asked police and magistrates to desist from mechanical arrests and detention, specifically mentioning that IPC’s Section 498A intended at protecting women was sometimes being used as a “weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives”.

The apex court ruled that no person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years should be arrested by the police without proper investigation.

The offences will include cheating, harassment of wife by husband and other family members, domestic violence, forgery, trespassing and causing hurt.

The court said magistrates should henceforth take steps to ensure that the accused in criminal cases punishable with seven years’ rigorous imprisonment are not mechanically kept in jails pending trial.

In effect, the police cannot arrest any person without conducting a preliminary investigation into the veracity of the allegations. Magistrates also cannot routinely remand them in judicial custody.

Failure to comply with the court order will invite disciplinary action, a bench of Justices C.K. Prasad and P.C. Ghose said in a judgment that laid down guidelines for states and Union territories.

The bench passed the ruling saying that such a directive was necessary in view of the increasing number of arrests of persons falsely implicated in criminal cases under 498A IPC (harassment of women by husband and other family members).

Such arrests, the court said, resulted in harassment, victimization and humiliation of a large number of persons in the country.

“The fact that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than a shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.

“In quite a number of cases, bed-ridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested,” said Justice Prasad, writing the judgment.

The court passed the judgment while dealing with an appeal filed by Arnesh Kumar of Bihar, challenging the criminal cases registered against him and his family members by his estranged wife in a matrimonial dispute.

The apex court cited the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau, which revealed the arrest of 197,762 people all over India in 2012 for offences under Section 498A — 9.4 per cent more than that in 2011.

“Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951, which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net,” the court said.

The court referred to the fallout of arrests and “the colonial mindset” of the police.

“Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever. Lawmakers know it, so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police, and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the CrPC (criminal procedure code). It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public,” the apex court said.

The bench said the power to arrest — and failure of the magistracy to check it — greatly contributes to the arrogance of the police.

“Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.

“As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognisable and, therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so.”

The court drew a distinction between the “existence of power” and the “justification to exercise it”.

“The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from the power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person,” Justice Prasad said.

According to the court, before arrest, a police officer has to be satisfied that such action is necessary to prevent such a person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing destruction of evidence.

The apex court expressed displeasure at the manner in which the magistrates also routinely remanded the accused in judicial custody.

“In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a magistrate authorises detention under Section 167, CrPC, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied.

“If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the code, magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused,” the bench said.

THE GUIDELINES

The guidelines reaffirmed or laid down by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The directives will apply to cases under IPC Section 498A (mental or physical cruelty to a woman by husband or his relatives or dowry harassment), Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also cases in which the punishment is up to seven years with or without fine

• All state governments should instruct police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A, IPC, is registered

• The police must satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest. The parameters for arrest are laid down in Section 41, CrPC

• All police officers must be provided with a checklist of sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii). The sub-clauses say an officer needs to satisfy himself or herself that only detention can prevent another offence or inducements/threats to the complainant or ensure proper investigation or avert destruction of evidence or ensure the presence of the accused in court

• While producing the accused before the magistrate, the police officer should file the checklist and furnish the reasons and materials that necessitated the arrest

• The magistrate should peruse the report furnished by the police and order detention only after recording his or her satisfaction

• If an accused is not arrested, that reason should also be forwarded to the magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case. This may be extended by the SP but the reasons must be recorded in writing

• The accused should be asked to appear for questioning within two weeks from the date of institution of the case. This also may be extended by the SP but the reasons should be recorded in writing

• Failure to comply will invite departmental action against the police officers as well as contempt proceedings in the high court concerned

• Magistrates who authorise detention without recording the reasons will face department action by the high court

498a indian penal code

Government is serious on use of article ipc 498A?? Is this some kind of joke.                                                                                                              

 Many wives are living happy life making their husband's life miserable by this tool of indian penal code (498a ipc).