Archive for the '498a Faq' Category

Sequence Of Events In A 498A FIR

The credit goes to Mr Gupta for compiling this valuable info.  As and when I have the time, I will incorporate this into The 498A Survival Kit.

Here are the steps:

This is ‘Police Warrant’ case i.e. instituted on police complaint (complaint given by ‘Informant’ i.e. wife in this case)

1] F.I.R.

2] Police Investigation (if at all takes place) & arrest without any necessity of warrant. In some States, D.C.P.’s permission is required for arrest.

3] Bail. Police asks for ‘Police Custody’ (called ‘PC’) for interrogation and recovery of articles (S.406 IPC). Accused submits custodial interrogation is not necessary etc. Then magistrate pass order for ‘Judicial Custody’ (called ‘JC’). Then accused apply for ‘bail’, say from ‘police prosecutor’ (called ‘pp’) and Investigation Officer (called I/O) is asked by court who always strongly objects religiously and then on argument from accused counsel it is granted (or not granted, then go to session to High Court to Supreme Court, at some place it is given). Important fact is that ‘bail’ is always granted from ‘JC’ AND NOT FROM ‘PC’. The process in legal fraternity is called breaking ‘PC’ to ‘JC’.

4] Then no need to attend court. On filing charge sheet, police sends summons or make telephone call to attend court to receive charge sheet, till such time – no need to attend court. However a tab shall always be maintained on chargesheet as many times police/court dont send information to accused at the time of filing chargesheet, but it does not harm accused except that precious time is killed.

5] At the time of receiving chargesheet which is given free of cost to ‘each’ accused by ‘pp’ in court, sometime court asks accused whether they are guilty, normally accused say – not guilty. Check the charge sheet – it is also called ‘Final Report’ – there should be a table showing list of witnesses and documents – many times it is not given, tell court for any discrepancy in it.

6] Then dates, accused must attend them or take exemption u/s205 of Cr.P.C. (permanent till trial starts).

7] Firstly, charges are framed u/s240 Cr.P.C. (if discharge application not made u/s239 Cr.P.C.) when accused can oppose.

8] Then First witness – wife – PW1 – PP asks question to her based on her complaint to take FIR on court record. Then accused’s counsel cross examine her.

9] Then her father (Pw-2), Mother (PW-3), Sister (PW-4) etc. whomsoever I/O has taken as witnesses and taken statements (which are given with chargesheet to accused).

10] Then I/O’s examination-in-chief by PP and cross by accused’s advocate (counsel).

11] With this, prosecution evidence closed. If accused has any witness, they can be called as defence witnesses (normally not called as they may by mistake say something against accused in cross examination). First accused’s advocate will take examination-in-chief and then PP will take cross-examine (prosecutin and defence role changes).

12] Accused are examined by magistrate u/s313 Cr.P.C.

13] Then PP gives argument, then accused’s advocate gives argument.

14] Enjoy – Now order – Acquittal/Sentencing.

15] Detailed written order is given after few days.

To get from point 1 to point 15, will take years. On the flip side, 498A conviction rates are very low, something like 2%. And then there is always the option to file appeals to the HC, SC and god  if a conviction occurs.


CrPC Sec 41 Amendment Maybe The Law Someday



The amendments are on hold due to sustained opposition by some of the beneficiaries of arbitrary arrests, the lawyers. They consider this “anti-lawyer” as they will lose a huge revenue stream due to the cut back in bail applications, once the gazette notification is issued.

Regardless, please remember that the CrPC amendment to Section 41, is the codification of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP, 1994. This judgment clearly states that an arrest is an exception and that an arrest should only be made in heinous crimes and that too only after an investigation and must be justified. Please download this judgment and keep a copy with you if you fear an arrest by the police for any reason:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994


The amendment to Section 41 of the CrPC has been signed into law by the President Of India.

As soon as the gazette notification is issued, no person can be arrested under 498A by the police without an investigation.

This is what the new Home Minister had to say:

“Referring to Section 41 of the Act, Chidambaram said in his letter, “This provision was severely criticised as capable of being misused and, in fact, was being misused.” To substantiate his point, he advised CMs to refer to reports of the Law Commission and the Malimath Committee and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in D K Basu case which laid down guidelines for effecting arrest. “

It is not just DK Basu Vs State Of WB, Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP has what has been codified into the CrPC amendment. This is an action that has been long overdue.

Bar associations across the country have been protesting under the pretext that these CrPC amendment (Section 41, CrPC), doing away with mandatory arrest provisions, would remove fear from the minds of criminals who would misuse the provisions under the garb of personal liberty.

What the bar associations will never tell you is that the police never had the power to make such arrests and that arrest is an exception and not the norm.

The fact is that by law,  it is the seminal  judgment of the Supreme Court, Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP,  that governs arrests in India.

The reasons the bar associations are giving for protesting against the CrPC amendments, such  as criminals not fearing the law and other such excuses is just plain bullshit.

They are giving their game away by saying with the same breath that these amendments are anti-lawyer and will reduce their income. Really !

How low can you get?

For a measly few thousand Rupees, these lawyers want to have entire families entangled in the corrupt criminal justice system for years !! Talk about ethics!

“Among the grouses of the lawyers is that the law if enacted will eat into their work substantially reducing their income. A sizeable income of the lawyers is generated by Bail related works.”

Now you know why these lawyers are protesting so that they can get bail related gravy. How about doing an honest days work for a change?

In reality, this amendment does away with the need to get bails and anticipatory bails,  a rich source of revenue for the lawyers, the dirty Indian cops, some filthy lower court magistrates and public prosecutors.

To see what I mean, take a look at the NCRB stats about the women arrested under 498A. If the SC guidelines had been judiciously followed, do you think so many men, women or children would have been arrested? Click here to look at the stats.

The CrPC amendments effectively signals the end of using 498A for extortion as the cops can no longer use arrests for extortion. Also remember this, the cops never had the power to arrest without cause or justification.  Hence, almost all 498A arrests have been illegal detentions.

This is a significant win for all who are fighting against the tyranny on men and their families imposed by this law, IPC 498A.

The Indian Feminazis are so stupid that they did not foresee the immediate consequence of this law or they would have been up in arms. I saw this coming and kept my mouth shut in order to not draw any attention to this beneficial side effect in the fight against 498A. The stupidity of the Feminazis can be guaged by the fact that they are ignoring the basic tenet of the Constitution, Habeas Corpus or the right against arbitrary detention, which this amendment codifies into the CrPC. They can try to change the Constitution Of India if they are unhappy about these amendments.


Should the govt decide to reverse course and allow arrests under 498A, I would be very happy. Why ?

The reason being that more Swarup Sarkars will emerge to bash the Feminazis and roll back the gains they made.

So Indian Feminazis, please do your best to roll back these amendments !


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-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.


Videoconferencing In Children’S Custody Case

Here is the link: Videoconferencing In Children’S Custody Case


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,278,941

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
October 2019
« Nov    

%d bloggers like this: