A Pune Techie Lands In The 498A Morass Of Her Creation

Posting it after getting permission from the original contributor:

Dear Friends,

Here is a complete story about a Pune Techie who caught in a Cobweb wooven by herself against her husband & in-laws. If even one member of the community could take benefit from this story, it will minimize my woes and pains which I suffered becoze of the false case.

A Pune techie tried to lodge a false 498a case against her husband & in laws at Police Post: Aundh of PS: Chaturshringhi Pune on 17/06/08 around 1.30pm but as per the police it was prima facie a minor tut u mein mein between the husband & wife & recorded the complaint U/s 323 IPC in which it was clearly mentioned that she does not want to go for any medical examination.

Frustrated by Police inaction, she immediately left for her native place by train and lodged an FIR on 18/6/08 evening U/s 498a/506/323 IPC read with Section 3&4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband & in-laws, using her family influence. A Medical examination was also got done, in which it is alleged that she was beaten by her husband on the night of 15th June by lathi & buts of hands and has pain in head, neck, back hand, legs cheeks etc with difficulty in walking & diminishing vision. Surprisingly the CMO prescribed only a tablet of Brufen for all the above narrated injuries. She was also referred to Eye Specialist and Orthopedics specialist but she did not visit them. Later the FIR was transferred to Pune because of Jurisdiction and a fresh FIR No: 297/08 was registered at PS: Chaturshringhi Pune taking the FIR No: 0 as a gospel truth. Here a few questions arise:

1. If she was really beaten on the night of 15th, why she did not contact the Police on 16th of June and attended her office for the whole day ?

2. If she was beaten by husband, why she had not gone to hospital for treatment at Pune, while it is a well known fact that Pune has better medical facilities than any other city in the Western & Central India.

3. If she was really beaten in Pune, why she went to her native place 900 kms away to register an FIR followed by medical treatment.

4. Can a lady with difficulty in walking and diminishing vision afford to travel 900 kms. by train.

5. Can a lady with diminishing vision afford to wait for medical treatment for three days only because her FIR is not yet registered and the Police had not sent her to the hospital ?

In the First three lines of the said FIR, she emphasized that her father gave all kinds of dowry articles as per his capacity in her marriage. And as a witness, five of her family members in a bid to help strengthen her false 498a case, recorded their statements before the Police that sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. While out of these five, two are Government servants and forgot their first & foremost duty to inform the Law Enforcing Agency/ Police, if dowry was being given in the marriage, which is a crime against society. It is pertinent to mention that Departmental disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against both of them for attending a marriage where dowry was given, as well as for going to Pune as a Witness in a criminal case inquiry without taking approval of its higher authorities and for going out of state without any sanction of leave & permission to leave the headquarter.

That for her own statements before Police & in FIR, affidavit in Session Court, her divorce petition and statements of the family members U/s: 161 before the Police, categorically mentioning that dowry was given in the marriage, a case U/s: 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP-3) had been registered against the Techie & all the five family members for giving dowry and abetment to giving dowry on the order of Ld. JMFC Court No: 9 Pune on 14th Nov 2009.

That also in order to strengthen her false 498a case against her husband and in-laws, the Techie hacked E. mail accounts of her husband & father-in-law number of times and took out prints using office system, internet and printing facility, while being a Software Engineer she can-not be treated as innocent about Cyber Laws in the Country and for which a case under IT Act 2000 is registered at Mumbai. In which, she had filed her reply accepting that she has accessed these e. mail accounts to collect proofs against her husband & in-laws using office system, internet & printing facility which clearly place equal responsibility as per Section 43A of the IT Act 2000 on the Employer for allowing misuse of its system.

Later in her DP-3 case, she and her parents applied for anticipatory bail on 12/3/10 which had not been granted yet because the Police has to recover all the Dowry articles which she alleged to have been given in the marriage by her parents and is now a case property. Since they have mentioned in their bail application that they have not committed any such crime as has been alleged in the FIR U/s: DP-3, it may invite another perjury case against the Techie & her family for registering false case.

Meanwhile the Techie, her father & Mother had been implicated in another criminal case for Perjury for submitting a false affidavit in the Court of Ld. Addl. Session Judge Pune U/s: 174, 177, 181, 191, 192, 196, 193 IPC and also U/S 340 CR. P.C. in which she has no escape.

Here it is for sure that the Techie & her family is caught in the cobweb woven by themselves against her husband & in-laws with no escape what so ever.

____________________________________

Protected: Rajesh Motwani Shows Us How To Win A Maintenance Case

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Rights And Responsibilities Of US Green Card Holders: A Reminder For The GC Holding 498A Wives

I am posting this here for the US based NRIs with marital issues.

They are a group often maligned by the radical feminists and by the media. What is never highlighted is the fact that these men are often used by their bitter halves to piggy back to the US and then dumped after these spouses get their green cards. They find themselves facing 498A and other cases in India especially after their spouses lose their case in the US court.

In an NRI divorce judgment, Justice Dhingra says:

“The decree passed by the court of USA has not been challenged by the complainant. She herself submitted to the jurisdiction of the USA Court and contested the case. She was living, at the time of contesting, the case in USA and continued to live in USA even after passing of decree till 2002. She even preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thus, it is not a case where decree was obtained by her husband clandestinely or she had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US Court or the US Court had no jurisdiction. Once a competent Court has passed an order in respect of return or exchange of articles including dowry articles, no offence under Section 406 IPC can be tried for the same articles in India.”

NRI spouses with GCs are required to obey US laws, implicitly acceding to US jurisdiction. It is a responsibility, like paying taxes in the US, that they are REQUIRED to fulfil. This is an agreement they are signing when accepting the green card. These women may want to think twice before filing a case against their hubbies in India after getting their green cards. They may be faced with a contempt of court charges in the US if they try to challenge the divorce judgment in India after losing the case here.

Here is the text of the responsibilities:

• You are required to obey all of the laws of the United States, the States, and localities.
• You are required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the US Internal Revenue Service and State IRS.
• You are expected to support the democratic form of government and cannot attempt to change the government through illegal means.
• If you are a male, age 18 through 25, you are required to register with the Selective Service.

Here is the pdf: US Green Card Holders Rights And Responsibilities

Here is the link to the US CIS site where I pulled this information from.

__________________________________________________________

Over 27,000 Women Arrested Per Year Under 498A Cases

Here is a revelation.

There are approximately 27,000 women being arrested per year in 498A cases a majority of whom are acquitted.

I gathered this from the statistics published by the NCRB. Here is the data from 2004-2006.

NCRB Data On The Women Arrested Under 498A

How can one call 498A a law meant to protect women ?

• Here are the rest of the statistics from the 498A.org.
• More Analysis Of NCRB Data

_______________________________________________________

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

___________________________________________________

SurvivingInfedelity.Com

Here is the link to the site:

http://survivinginfidelity.com/

_____________________________________

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:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1723254,00.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: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html
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.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Orders A CBI Inquiry

http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_J.asp?pn=783&yr=2008

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.

_________________________________________

Mumbai HC: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up

The Mumbai HC may have taken the first step in the right direction of blunting this extortion racket called Sec 498A Of The IPC. A 498A wife files the case to force the hubby to settle and then prays the HC for a quash.

To understand what I am saying, read this:

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

You can also read about this NRI doctor whose sister was jailed for a month and released after the NRI paid up the demanded cash. Indira Jaising was instrumental in getting his sister arrested.

You can read about it here: NRI doctor fleeced for 40 Lakhs

If this is not extortion, then what is ?

Here is the news article: Mumbai HC: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up

Here is the 107 Page judgment:  Mumbai HC Judgement: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up

Here is the graphic:

__________________________________________________

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

_____________________________________

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani: Right Against Self Incrimination

Nandini Satpathy – former Chief Minister of Orissa – against whom a case had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was asked to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police [Vigilance] for questioning. The police wanted to interrogate her by giving her a string of questions in writing. She refused to answer the questionnaire, on the grounds that it was a violation of her fundamental right against self-incrimination. The police insisted that she must answer their questions and booked her under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes punishment for refusing to answer any question asked by a public servant authorised to ask that question. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Nandini Satpathy had a right to silence and whether people can refuse to answer questions during investigation that would point towards their guilt.
Supreme Court Observations:
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against her/himself. Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], casts a duty on a person to truthfully answer all questions, except those which establish personal guilt to an investigating officer.
The Supreme Court accepted that there is a rivalry between societal interest in crime detection and the constitutional rights of an accused person. They admitted that the police had a difficult job to do especially when crimes were growing and criminals were outwitting detectives. Despite this, the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution is of utmost importance, the Court said. In the interest of protecting these rights,we cannot afford to write off fear of police torture leading to forced self incrimination.
While any statement given freely and voluntarily by an accused person is admissible and even invaluable to an investigation, use of pressure whether ?subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or indirect but sufficiently substantial? by the police to get information is not permitted as it violates the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that the accused has a right to silence during interrogation if the answer exposes her/him into admitting guilt in either the case under investigation or in any other offence. They pointed out that ground realities were such that a police officer is a commanding and authoritative figure and therefore, clearly in a position to exercise influence over the accused.
Supreme Court Directives
1. An accused person cannot be coerced or influenced into giving a statement pointing to her/his guilt.
2. The accused person must be informed of her/his right to remain silent and also of the right against self incrimination.
3. The person being interrogated has the right to have a lawyer by her/his side if she/he so wishes.13
4. An accused person must be informed of the right to consult a lawyer at the time of questioning, irrespective of the fact whether s/he is under arrest or in detention.
5. Women should not be summoned to the police station for questioning in breach of Section 160 (1) CrPC.14
An essential element of a fair trial is that the accused cannot be forced to give evidence against her/himself. Forcing suspects to sign statements admitting their guilt violates the constitutional guarantee against self incrimination and breaches provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It is also inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. In addition, causing ‘hurt’ to get a confession is punishable by imprisonment up to seven years.

Here is the judgment: Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani: Right Against Self Incrimination

_______________________________________

What Is IPC 498A?

The Supreme Court has stated that: “Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC.”

Here is the link to the pdf: What Is Section 498A Of The Indian Penal Code?

Here is the same in text:

People don’t know what Section 498A of the IPC is nor do they know what to do when a 498A case is registered against them. For starters, 498A is a criminal offence that came into existence to combat domestic violence and protect women from dowry harassment.The history of this law runs as follows. In the 1980s, the incidences of ‘dowry deaths’ were steadily rising in India. A dowry death is the murder of a young woman; committed by the in-laws, when she was unable to fulfill their coercive demands for money, articles or property, categorized as dowry. Organizations across the country pressurized and urged the government to provide legislative protection to women against domestic violence and dowry. The objective was to allow the state to intervene rapidly and prevent the murders of young girls who were unable to meet the dowry demands of their in-laws. As a result of the intense campaigning and lobbying, significant amendments were made in the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, with the intention of protecting women from marital violence, abuse and dowry demands. The most important amendment came in the form of the introduction of Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The text of the law is given below:
Indian Penal Code – Section 498A, IPC
Introduced in the Penal Code by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983
(Act No. 46 of 1983)
498A. HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND OF A WOMAN SUBJECTING HER TO CRUELTY:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Analysis of the section shows that this law deals with four types of cruelty:
Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide,
Any conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health of the woman,
Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give some property,
or
Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is a criminal offence. It is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.
Unfortunately, the formulation of this law left a host of loopholes for exploitation and abuse.
20+ years later, if a family has an estranged `Bahu’ (daughter in law) in their family, the entire family can be jailed under Section 498A of the IPC, based on a complaint in the police station. The objective of the ‘Bahu’ and her parents is to subject the family to an ordeal designed to break their will and ensure that they give in to whatever demands put forward.

This law exposes families who belong to the middle and upper middle classes of society and NRIs, as these segments of society are vulnerable to legalized extortion by corrupt agencies of the government.
There is no way to avoid a 498A from being filed, unless the family is very well connected or somehow manage to make her realize that it is not in her long term interest to change a domestic dispute into a criminal offence.
A typical case will go on for 3 to 7 years.
From the people you talk to and from the online portals you visit, you will learn that this is a criminal law to combat domestic violence and dowry harassment etc, etc, etc. I’ll ignore this and cut to the chase.
In its present form,

498a is an extortion racket

In legal terms, 498A is an offence, which is:

• Cognizable: Offences are divided into cognizable and non-cognizable. By law, the police are duty bound to register and investigate a cognizable offence. 498A is a cognizable offence.
• Non-Bailable: There are two kinds of offences, bailable and non-bailable. 498A is non bailable. This means that the magistrate has the power to refuse bail and remand a person to judicial or police custody.
• Non-Compoundable: A non-compoundable case, e.g. Rape, 498A etc, cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner. The exception is in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where 498A was made compoundable.

In actual terms, 498A is an offence, which is:

• Cognizable: The police will register a 498A case since it is required by law, but they don’t investigate but go on to arrest people because of the money to be made in bribes from both sides in a 498A case.
• Non-Bailable: Since bail is at the discretion of the magistrate, all sorts of games will be played to have families locked up while negotiations go on to settle the case. This may happen in cases where the magistrates are allegedly corrupt or, the public prosecutor and the cops are in cahoots.
• Non-Compoundable: Though 498A is non compoundable, the courts are allowing the withdrawal of the case when the parties agree to reconcile or settle case. In real terms, if you pay up, the case goes away. If you don’t you’ll get stuck with a criminal case that will go on for years.

The other characteristics of this extortion racket are:

• It is a law that fosters corruption and enables govt agencies like the police to violate Fundamental Rights.
• It plays a role in gender based vote bank politics.
• It denies justice to the real victims of dowry harassment.
• It exposes innocent families to the evils of the corrupt Indian criminal justice system.
• This is a law poisoning the lower judiciary by exposing it to corruption.
• Above all, this is a gamble bound to fail if the accused choose to fight back.

Motives And Instigators:

Let’s start with the motives and instigators:

• Money: The greatest of motivators. A 498A can lead to great terms for a fat cash settlement, or help her dad or sibling in their ventures, etc, etc.
• Vengeance: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. She will have her revenge and the family will collectively bear the brunt of it. The 498A Wives have a soft corner for their mothers -in law and sisters -in law. They may very well see the inside of a prison.
• Guilt: She’s done something wrong, may have committed adultery and got caught in the act. She wants to cover it up with a dowry harassment case to garner sympathy and to provide cover for her guilt. It also puts her in a good position to negotiate a fat settlement and gain custody of kids, if kids are involved. 498A will be filed when paternity is in question. Don’t count on DNA evidence, as the courts do not/ or are reluctant to allow it. Indian law is still ruled by the evidence act from 1872.
• She Is Just Not Into Her Husband: She may not like her husband and 498A is a convenient tool to get out of the marriage.
• She Is A Control Freak: She wants to control her husband in every possible way. She may also want her husband to not support his parents and siblings in any fashion regardless of his ability to do so. She may want her husband to throw his parents out of their house. Her goal is to gain control of all aspects of his life, including finances and to break the bonds and responsibilities that tie him to his family. Her failure to do so will result in a 498A.
• To Marry The Boyfriend: This is a new trend whereby she will file a 498A just to force her husband into settling the divorce with a chunk of cash and then go on to marry her boyfriend. They will use the cash to set up their “Chota Sa Ghar”, or their “Premiyon Ka Mahal” if the settlement is large enough.

498A is the perfect tool for extortion and/or to wreak vengeance on a family. The main ingredients that go into making it an extortion racket are:

• The involvement of the corrupt, untrained, Indian police force in a domestic dispute.
• The involvement of the overburdened and unregulated lower courts and the convoluted and lengthy Indian justice delivery system.
• The non-enforcement of penalties (Section 182) for filing frivolous cases or for perjury.
• Political/police influence from the other side. If this is a factor in your case, I kid you not; you are in for an ordeal that will require extra doses of fortitude, courage and patience to overcome.

All these factors will be used to leverage money out of a family or subject ther family to the kind of harassment that can only be defined as torture. It is no wonder that the Supreme Court (Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India Writ petition(C) no.141 of 2005) has condemned 498A as “Legal Terrorism”, though ruling 498A constitutional.
To understand how to survive this ordeal read the contents of the link below:

A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A

END

_________________________________________________

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.

Excerpts:

• ” 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

_____________________________________________________