Archive for the '498A Compoundable' Category

498A Counter Cases To Fight Back With – Compiled By Rudy

Rudy’s compilation for avenues of possible counter cases
32, 120B,
167 (investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours),
182 (offenses committed by letters),
191 (transfer on application of the accused),
197 (prosecution of judges and public servants),
199 (defamation) ,
200 (examination of complainant) ,
201 (Magistrate not competent), 204,
209 (triable exclusively by Court of Session), 211,
249 (absence of complainant) ,
250 (compensation for accusation), 306,
321 (withdrawl from prosecution) ,
323 (commit to Session Court), 355, 378, 379,
384 (summary dismissal of appeal),
392 (judge of Court of Appeal are equally divided),
406 (criminal breach of trust), 420,
467 (period of limitation), 471,
497 (adultery), 499,
500 (defamation) ,
504 (insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace),
506 (criminal intimidation) , RCR
Damage recovery case u/s 9 of CPC (law of torts):
If she breaks into your home, creates a scene, and goes to ” protection
officer ” and lies that you abused her “physically, emotionally or
economically” , file a damage recovery case u/s 9 of CPC against her. Legally,
you must issue notice on the same day or next day. The suit will continue for
long time. It has no risk.

What I had compiled sometime back, may some repetition wrt Rudy’s options. S.191 :Giving false evidence+ S.340(1) of CrPC for Perjury @ Family/Magistrate Court
S.209 : Dishonest claim
S.211 : False charge of offence made with intent to injure
S.361 : For child – Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
S.378 :Theft
S.383 : Extortion
S.463 : Forgery
S.499: Defamation

Sections which u can check with ur advocate(I dont remember the IPC section offhand for these crimes) – Criminal Intimidation, Criminal breach of trust(non return of loans), Threatening, Abbetment of crime, these may be referring to a period before even your wife filed cases against you.

Some other sections of IPC helpful for husband side:
182 False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person
191 Giving false evidence
192 Fabricating false evidence
195A Threatening any person to
give false evidence
196 Using evidence known to be false
197 Issuing or signing false certificate
198 Using as true a certificate known to be false
199 False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence
200 Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offender
202 Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform
203 Giving false information respecting an offence commited
204 destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence
205 False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution there are


A Gujarati Guide To Surviving IPC 498A

This is a translated, though slightly older version of the popular Guide To Surviving IPC 498A.

Download the pdf here:

A Gujarati Guide To Surviving IPC 498A (pdf)

All the supporting material in the form of judgments, etc, in English, are here:

The 498A Survival Kit


SC – Police Or Courts Cannot Impound Passports

Here is the link to the judgment:

SC – Police Or Courts Cannot Impound Passports


12. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property, which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of property or document the said property or document is retained foursome period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ra m a n a th a Aiyar (2 nd Edition), the word “impound” has been defined to mean “to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law”.
Thus, the word “impounding” really means retention of possession of a good or a document, which has been seized.
13. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr. P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 1 0 2 of Cr.P .C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 1 0( 3) of the P a s sports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 1 0 2 Cr.P .C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binap ani Dei[Air 1967 SC 1269 ]


SC-Maintenance From Parents In Law Cannot Be Claimed By DIL – 2008

Here is the judgment: SC-Maintenance Cannot Be Claimed By DIL – 2008

Parents-in-law can’t be forced to maintain daughter-in-law:

The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman, if neglected by her husband, cannot eye her mother-in-law’s property for getting maintenance. Maintenance of a married woman is her husband’s personal obligation and the property in her mother-in-law’s name can never be the subject matter of the obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law even after the death of her husband, said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar. A woman lawyer, who had filed several cases against her parents-in-law in Chincholi, Karnataka, had even taken recourse to litigation to see that their property was auctioned for getting the maintenance she was entitled to from their son. Disapproving the extra-legal arguments taken by her and deprecating the trial court and the Karnataka High Court overstretching the law as well as their jurisdiction to go by her pleadings, the Bench said a woman could seek attachment of properties only if her husband had a share in it. This means, if the parents-inlaw’s properties were self-acquired and not inherited, then their daughter-in-law could institute suits seeking attachment of those properties which stood in the name of her husband and not against those owned by his parents. Referring to the plea of the daughter-in-law, Sonalben, the Bench said she might be entitled to maintenance from her husband and the decree in her suit could only be against his properties. “The decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached for that but not of her mother-in-law,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for theBench. Referring to the HC order, which was challenged by mother-in-law Vimlaben, the apex court said it suffered from “total non-application of mind” and was “wholly unsustainable”.”

The said orders might have been passed only on consideration that Sonalben is a harassed lady, but the fact that Vimlaben is also a much harassed lady was lost sight of (by the HC),” the Bench said. Directing release of the attached properties to Vimlaben, the court directed Sonalben to give Rs 50,000 to her mother-in-law as cost of litigation.


AP HC Acknowledges The Abuse Of 498A – 2007

Here is a great judgement from Justice Swaroop Reddy Of the AP HC. He basically acknowledges the abuse of 498A going on in the country and in the state.

Here are some excerpts:

  • 8. Before parting with the petition, I feel it desirable to observe that there is rampant misuse of S.498-A IPC. False complaints are given against kith-and-kin of the husband, including the married sisters and their husbands;unmarried sisters and brothers and married brothers and their wives. There are instances where even young children, aged below ten years, were also implicated in the offences of this nature. My experience, while sitting in matrimonial Bench revealed that several families are ruined; marriages have been irretrievably broken down and chances of reconciliation of spouses have been spoiled on account of unnecessary complaints and the consequent arrest and remand of the husbands and their kith-and-kin. To discourage this unhealthy practice, it is desirable that anticipatory bail is granted very liberally in all cases of S.498-A IPC, particularly when the petitioner/accused is not the husband of the complainant and when the allegations are not very specific and prima facie do not inspire confidence.
  • 9. Section 498-A IPC is incorporated by the Legislature basically in the interest of women and to safe guard them from harassment. But, it has become somewhat counter productive. In several cases, women are harassed, arrested and humiliated on the complaints given under section 498-A IPC. The truth or otherwise of the allegations is subject to proof. For giving complaint absolutely no authentic and prima facie material like medical evidence is required, but on such complaints, in several cases, number of women are being arrested. In cases of arrest of married young women, they might face problems from their husbands and in-laws; in case unmarried women are arrested their marriage prospects would be badly affected and if government servants are arrested their service prospects are affected. In the present case, only one woman is the alleged victim; but at least four women might have to go to jail even before trial, effecting their reputation, subjecting them to rude treatment at Police Station etc.
  • 10.Only in cases where, strong and authentic evidence like letters written by the accused-husband to the spouses or their parents etc., are available and where there is sufferance of serious injuries or death of the victim only, perhaps, it is desirable to refuse anticipatory bail, that, too, for the accused-husband. Another important aspect is in this type of cases; there is no chance of witnesses turning hostile or being influenced by the accused, as the witnesses would invariably be the kith-and-kin of the alleged victim like herself and her parents etc.These aspects have to be kept in view, while dealing with the cases of anticipatory bail/bail in cases of offences involving section 498-A IPC.

Here is the judgment:  AP HC Acknowledges The Abuse Of 498A


The Judge’s Take On Heather Mills- A Potential 498A Wife

A gold digger just struck gold. If this had been India this famous Beatle would have faced a 498A but would have avoided an arrest and the case would have been quashed or hushed up (498A doesn’t apply to the rich and famous). Since this was England, he found himslef in a familiar predicament, having to pay up for committing the blunder of getting married to a gold digger, just like any of us who ended up with 498A wives.

This gold digger walked away with a whopping $49 millionUS. Here are some excerpts from the judgment:

  • Judge Bennett: “The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately, though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.”
  • Judge Bennett: “Much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate, but also less than candid”.
  • Judge Bennett: “The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts simply do not support her case.”
  • Judge Bennett’s conclusion: that Mills’ “association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career.”

Judge Bennett considered Mills “her own worst enemy”, given to “distinctly distasteful” behaviour and a “me-too” attitude based on a greedy belief she was entitled to an equal share of all the worldly riches of the multi-millionaire pop star.

The judge described her claim to roughly £ 3.25m a year as “unreasonable, indeed exorbitant”. The judgment scathingly derides Mills’s claim she played a key role in professionally rehabilitating her pop-star husband.

Here is the judgment: Heather Mills Judgment

Here is the link to the article:,8816,1723254,00.html

Check out the expression of this gold digger as she walks away with close to $50 million.


US Dept Of State Description Of Indian Criminal Justice System Penalties

Here is the link:
Here is the pdf: US Dept Of State Description Of Indian Criminal Justice System

Here is the text:

CRIMINAL PENALTIES: While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country’s laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. Persons violating Indian laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned. For example, certain comments or gestures towards women or about religion that are legal in the United States may be considered a criminal violation in India, subjecting the accused to possible fines or imprisonment. Furthermore, since the police may arrest anyone who is accused of committing a crime (even if the allegation is frivolous in nature), the Indian criminal justice system is often used to escalate personal disagreements into criminal charges. This practice has been increasingly exploited by dissatisfied business partners, contractors, estranged spouses, or other persons with whom the U.S. citizen has a disagreement, occasionally resulting in the jailing of U.S. citizens pending resolution of their disputes. At the very least, such circumstances can delay the U.S. citizen’s timely departure from India, and may result in an unintended long-term stay in the country. Penalties for possession, use, or trafficking in illegal drugs in India are severe, and convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines. Engaging in sexual conduct with children or using or disseminating child pornography in India is a crime, and is prosecutable in the United States. Please see our information on Criminal Penalties.


Justice Dhingra Orders A CBI Inquiry Into The Conduct Of Some Corrupt Delhi Cops

Here is the news coverage. This judgment has a significant importance to me as the cops and the bastard of a magistrate pulled a similar stunt with my family.

High Court directs CBI to inquire into Delhi Police conduct Monday, February 25, 2008 :

Taking exception to the manner in which the Delhi police is handling petty cases and pushing the innocent behind bars, Delhi High Courthas directed the Central CBI to inquire into the conduct of the police in this matter. Justice S N Dhingra directed the Delhi Government to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 each to two people who were confined illegally in police custody, for petty offences just because the police official wanted to settle scores with them. The incident related to one Sanjeev Kumar Singh and his friend, who were picked up by the Delhi police on February 4, 2007, at Samaypur Badali police station. They were apprehended by the police under Section 107/151, CrPC on the charge of abusing, threatening and quarrelling with each other. They were produced before ACP J S Vaid, who was working as Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) on February 4. The SEM sent them to Judicial Custody (JC) till February 17. Though they were asked to furnish a surety of Rs 5000 each, the record showed that the bail bond was accepted by furnishing a surety of Rs 15000 from each. In his petition, Sanjeev Kumar had alleged that the police officials had not only incorporated these sections to illegally detain and harass them, but have also encroached upon their fundamental right. They were friends but the police wanted to settle scores with them and booked them illegally. Justice Dhingra observed the case showed high-handedness of the police and the SEM concerned. The petitioner was kept in illegal confinement because of the SEM’s illegal action of not accepting the bail bond on the same day. The court directed the CBI to investigate the matter and submit its report to the Metropilitan Magistrate concerned within 120 days.


The Comprehensive Guide To Surviving IPC 498A

The Survivor’s Guide To IPC498A has been renamed, rewritten and divided into an introduction and 3 chapters.

Chapter one contains comprehensive excerpts from Supreme Court and High Court judgments that describe your rights and the limits on the powers of the police. Please read it to defend yourselves effectively.

Here is the link to the same document and supporting material:

A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A


NHRC Tells HC: Police Must Change Way Of Probing Dowry Related Cases

New Delhi, Nov 5 (PTI) The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) today suggested before the Delhi High Court that police change its way of investigating dowry related cases to ensure that no “innocent” is lodged in jail.
Recommending that “police needs to review its routine in conducting investigations in dowry cases to ensure that it is not misused,” the NHRC submitted a report before a Division Bench of Justices R S Sodhi and B N Chaturvedi, pursuant to its earlier order to inspect the overcrowded Tihar jail.
Appearing for NHRC, counsel Meenakshi Arora submitted that several people, including small children and very old people, have been lodged in jail in dowry related cases, which is one of the reasons for overcrowding in the prison.
Suggesting continuous monitoring of the action taken by jail authorities, she informed the Bench that maximum prisoners were found to be implicated under the NDPS and Arms Act. Most of the prisoners were found to be from the category of below poverty line, the counsel said.
Taking suo motu cognisance over a media report about overcrowding in Tihar jail, the Bench earlier asked the jail authorities to release forthwith undertrials lodged in Tihar for petty offences.
The NHRC also stated in the report that inmates were not properly provided with basic amenities besides lack of proper medical facilities to the prisoners.
Recommending an effective complaint redressal system in the jail, the report stated there were frequent fights amongst inmates.
To the recommendations of NHRC, the Bench asked the NCT government to file its response by Wednesday. PTI


IBN Live Highlights The Plight Of 498A Victims On Zindagi Live

Here is the link:
Guilty until proven innocent

Sunday, Nov 4

10 am & 8 pm

They get punished and their families get punished. They get punished for a crime before it’s proved. They lose their jobs, their children and their piece of mind. That’s Zindagi Live this week on IBN.


Justice Dhingra: Police Do Not Investigate In 498A Cases (Crl.Apl No. 696/2004)

News Flash

This judgment of Justice Dhingra led to the standing order from Delhi Police Commissioner YS Dadwal, prohibiting the arrests in 498A cases without the permission of the DCP (Jun/21/2008).

You can read about this here:  Delhi Police Commissioner: No 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP


Publication: Times Of India Delhi;
Date:Nov 2, 2007;
Section:Times City;
Page Number:5
HC: Wife can’t use failed marriage to harass in-laws
Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: Dismayed by the increasing misuse of anti-dowry laws, the Delhi high court has observed that failed marriages are ‘‘not a crime’’ and berated the tendency by women to see souring of matrimony as valid ground to get even with the husband and in-laws or to extract money.
‘‘A failed marriage is not a crime. However, provisions of section 498-A (cruelty by in-laws or husband) are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and people are using this as a tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible,’’ Justice S N Dhingra said on Thursday while acquitting the husband, in laws and ‘jethani’ of a woman who had alleged that they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire due to her inability to get dowry or secure an employment for her husband.
‘‘It must be acknowledged that marriages do fail and there is a mismatch not only in an arranged union but even in love marriages, which is discovered during the continuation of married life,’’ the judge remarked as it turned out that the harassment charge was slapped by the wife because she was unhappy with her husband’s unemployment and a life of penury.


  • ” It is her own case that a container of 05 litres of kerosene oil was poured on her. 05 litres of kerosene oil is an enormous quantity of oil and if this quantity is poured on a person and fire is lit, he/she will immediately turn into a fire ball. Presuming that the complainant had extinguished the fire immediately by pouring a bucket full of water on herself and by tearing her clothes, in that case the unburnt kerosene oil would remain on clothes and she would have been profusely smelling of kerosene oil. Not only her clothes but her entire body would have been drenched with kerosene oil and her clothes would have been drenched with kerosene oil and water. It is not her case that when she was removed to hospital her clothes were changed or she was washed off and bathed, rather her allegations are that she was continuously beaten for two hours before having been removed to the hospital and she kept lying there for two hours in kerosene oil and water. It cannot be believed that on seeing a patient in such a condition, doctor would have closed his eyes and would not record the condition in the MLC. “
  • “Her husband was not a criminal neither it is alleged that he had any criminal background. A poor man who was starving for his survival and had to work as a labour from morning till evening for livelihood, could not have given threats to kill his own son and father-in-law. This story of threat seems to have been developed later on by the complainant in consultation with father. “
  • “The Courts must be very cautious during trials of such offences. In all these cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by police. The police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about the claims made by the complainant. No evidence about giving of dowry or resources of the complainant’s family claiming spending of huge amounts is collected by the police. This all is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law.”
  • “From the entire documents and the testimony of the witnesses I come to the conclusion that it is an unfortunate case where the complainant by making false statement implicated the entire family in offenses of under Section 307 and 498 A IPC. The Trial Court was not cautious enough to even look to admitted documents on record before convicting the family on mere statement of an estranged wife. Trial Courts should guard themselves from being swayed by emotions. They should consider entire circumstances and should carefully analyze the entire evidence. Poverty should not be allowed to become a crime. Neither failed marriage be permitted to be a crime.”

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC: Wife Can’t Use Failed Marriage To Harass In-Laws


The Definition Of Torture, As Per The Supreme Court Of India

The Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P, 1994, described how the police treated Nidhi, the victim, in the following manner:

“On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th July, 1993. On 24.7.93 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyaya S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I, and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself in case of her default and when she refused her family members were brought in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th July 1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and jostled and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay, Sukhpal Singh and Narendrapal Singh with injury to her body if she did not write down the dictated note. Sukhpal Singh SSI even assaulted her on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. She did not yield to the pressure.”

The Ho’nble judge then went on to define torture:

“Torture is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even more grave”

From this judgment, it is very clear that each time our families are threatened by the police with the old threat of “Pay up, or else…”, they are subjecting them to torture.

Torture, in the words of the Supreme Court of India is “is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands”

SC: The Definition Of Torture Given In Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P


Justice Dhingra Ensures The Jailing Of A Corrupt Female CAW Cell Officer-2007

Justice Dhingra in action again.

This time he denies the appeal of convicted, corrupt CAW cell SI. This judgment more than reinforces my assertion that 498A and all this crap about protecting women is just a smokescreen to make money of the misery of citizens.

Here is an excerpt:

“The evidence shows that she was posted out on 28th September, 1999 and the bribe was accepted on 1st October, 1999. There is no evidence that complainant was aware of her posting out from the department. Moreover, if she was posted out on 28th October, 1999 she had no business to be there in CAW Cell. Her presence there itself shows that she had come to the office of CAW Cell only for the purpose of obtaining bribe. Even if she was not working as investigating officer, she took advantage of ignorance of the complainant that she was no more investigating officer and still accepted the bribe. I, therefore, consider that in such a case where police official, and those who are responsible for proper running of criminal justice system , indulge into the corruption, the Court should take serious view. Considering all facts I do not find it a fit case where the sentence of the appellant be suspended. The application is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall prejudice the decision of appeal on merits”

Here is the judgment:

Justice Dhingra Ensures The Jailing Of A Corrupt CAW Cell Officer-2007


Allahabad HC-No Arbitrary Arrests In Cognizable Cases – 2004

Here is a judgment by Justice Markandeya Katju while he was serving as a judge of the Allahabad HC.
He says:
“After the promulgation of the Constitution individual liberty has become of great importance particularly in view of Article 21, which is a fundamental right. Hence it cannot be lightly interfered with. Moreover, section 157(1) Cr.P.C. States :-

“157. Procedure for investigation – (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.”

The above provision clearly shows that it is not necessary to arrest in every case wherever a FIR of cognizable offence has been registered. No doubt investigation has to be made in every case where a cognizable offence is disclosed but in our opinion investigation does not necessarily include arrest. Often the investigation can be done without arresting a person, and this legal position becomes clear from section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C. because that provision states that the Police Officer has to investigate the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the arrest of the offender. The use of words ‘ if necessary’ clearly indicates that the Police Officer does not have to arrest in every case wherever FIR has been lodged and this position has been clarified in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).

In our country unfortunately whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged the police immediately goes to arrest the accused. This practice in our opinion is illegal as it s against the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar’s case, and it is also in violation of Article 21 of theConstitution as well as section 157 (1) Cr.P.C. No doubt section 157(1) Cr.P.C. gives a police officer discretion to arrest or not, but this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and it must be exercised in accordance with the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).”

Here is the judgment: Allahabad HC-No Arbitrary Arrests In Cognizable Cases


Wife Summoned For Falsifying Evidence In Maintenance Case

Here is the link: Woman summoned for false evidence in divorce case


Understanding HC Quash Petitions: Section 482 Of CrPC

The definitive guidelines under which a High Court can exercise its authority to quash a petition is given by the Supreme Court in the Bhajan Las Vs State Of Haryana, 21/11/1990, judgment. This judgment lays the ground rules for a HC to quash a criminal case.

Here is the link to the judgment from Judis:

SC: HCs Have To Be Cautious In ‘Dowry’ Cases

The best explanation of the view of the courts, in my opinion, has been given by Justice Dhingra.

This is what he says:

“While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. the Court has to keep in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. This is a function of the Trial Court. Though the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment but the Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances in consideration before issuing process under Section 482 lest the Section becomes an instrument in the hands of accused persons to claim differential treatment only because the accused persons can spend money to approach higher forums. This Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. “

Here is the document that attempts to explain HC Quash Petitions (Section 482):

Understanding HC Quash Petitions: Section 482 Of CrPC


Innocence Lost: The Arrival Of The Pre-Nuptial Among The Young

Imagine starting your life as a couple with an agreement that the hubby gets this and the wife gets that if things don’t work out. Where is the trust in a relationship as sacred  as that between man and wife?

Thanks to laws like the DV Act and 498A, the young are now resorting to pre-nup agreements. I do agree that it is a pragmatic move, but I attribute it catching on so fast solely due to laws like the DV Act and 498A which actually make it easier for a woman to break a marriage over trivial issues and wreak havoc on a mans family.


The Abuse Of The Benevolence Of The Courts In 498A Cases

Why is it that as a nation and a race we are able to find a way to abuse any provision made for the common good?

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence. This means that once a case is lodged, a case cannot be withdrawn and must be go on to its logical conclusion. However, the Supreme Court of India, with benevolent intentions (Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1386), started allowed the compounding of 498A cases. Here is the sound reasoning behind it:

“if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It was also observed that in case of matrimonial disputes it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes”.

Justice Dhingra also explained The Reasoning Behind Permitting The Compounding Of 498A Cases.

Here is the issue. These days, false 498A cases are filed to extort money and once that is done, the HC is approached to quash it. Those who choose to fight back and stand up against the extortion racket face years of litigation and running around the trial courts. Their cases can’t get quashed as the High Courts are reluctant to do so. Their is no penalty imposed for filing a false case and it is known that a 498A case, though non-compoundable, can be withdrawn in the guise of a “compromise” by the complainant.

The compounding of 498A cases is thus allowing the extortion racket to grow.

Here are 4 judgments from the same day from the DelhiHC which were quashed and all of them were done as a compromise was reached.

In no way do I mean any disrespect to the honorable judge nor am I questioning the reasoning behind these judgments.

All I am attempting to do is to ask the Judiciary to scrutinize the terms of these “compromises” to verify that they fulfill the intentions of the honorable Supreme Court. I am saying this, as inadvertently, the benevolence of the courts is being abused and leading to the propagation of this extortion racket. Those of us, who stand up to our principles are spending the most productive years of our lives facing persecution for our beliefs and find ourselves defenseless and stripped of our dignity as we had to see our family in jail due to baseless allegations.

If we had “compromised” by paying up, the cases would have been withdrawn. Since we have chosen to fight, we find ourselves entangled in a criminal case for years to come only to be acquitted eventually.

I pray to the courts to look at the effect your benevolence is having on the likes of us and remedy the situation by ensuring that the law remains a law and not a tool for extortion.

Here is a classic example of how this extortion racket works: NRI fleeced 40 Lakhs (pdf)

Updated Mar 2008:

Looks like the Mumbai HC heard my prayers. Here is the news about this very important judgment: Here is the news article: Mumbai HC: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up


MP HC: DV Act Cannot Be Filed Against Female Relatives

A judge of the MP High Court has passed a judgment which says:

Thus, it is clear by the definition of respondent that for obtaining any relief under this Act an application can be filed or a proceeding can be initiated against only adult male person and on such application or under such proceeding, aforementioned protection order can be passed. Obviously those orders will also be passed only against the adult male person.

Here is the judgment: MP HC: DV Act Cannot Be Filed Against Female Relatives


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 2,115,779

Cluster Map

Live Traffic


Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.


The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
August 2014
« Jul    


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 315 other followers