JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Faculty of Law

[FRIVOLOUS CASES UNDER SECTION 498A WITH REFERENCE TO VIOLATION

OF ARNEESH KUMAR GUIDELINES]
UNDER IPC 1860

NAME:- JAWED ARSHAD

ROLL NO:- 23 [REGULAR]
SEM:- III
STUDENT ID:- 202101725(R)

1
SR.NO. CONTENT PAGE.NO.

1 Introduction 3

2. Research Problem 4
Research Question
Research Methodology
3. Literature Review 5

4. Criminal Law Second Amendment Act(1983) 6-7

Ingredients of 498A
Constitutionality of the amendment
5. Misuse of the section 498A 7

6. Arnesh Kumar case 8-12

Rajesh Sharma case
Krishna Lal Chawla Case

7. Suggestions and Reforms 12

8. Conclusion 13

2
 INTRODUCTION
Law, especially criminal law, intends to control, if not altogether remove, the malady that gets
into the spine of society and gradually corrodes the marrows of the vertebrae of a large Section
of society.1

In the past, women were treated with respect and accorded the same status as men.
Nevertheless, over time, the status of women has altered. Even history demonstrates that a
husband, who is regarded as the "Karta" of the home, performs a higher role to that of a wife.
Women are now routinely the victims of atrocities, and the situation has gotten worse over
time. One of them is the devil of dower. The wife is viewed as a tool for obtaining wealth, and
if those illegal demands are not met, violence is used against her. Sometimes it becomes so bad
that she can't think of anything else to do but kill herself. To stop this kind of cruelty toward
women, it became imperative to pass some legislation.

As a result, in 1983, section 498A of the IPC, an amendment to the Dowry Prohibition Act,
was introduced. It was obvious that the goal was to stop the evil of brutality against women.
But a shield that was intended to shield women from the abuse they suffered at the hands of
their husbands and in-laws has now been turned into a weapon that women may use to fight
back against their husbands and in-laws. The problem exists on both sides; on the one hand,
women who are not aware of their rights are unable to use section 498A to protect those rights,
and on the other hand, women who are well aware of their rights but act maliciously abuse this
section to harm the husband and his family in order to make amends for past wrongs.

RESEARCH PROBLEM:-

The aim of the study is to understand whether section 498A of the Indian penal code, 1860 is
misused by women. The researcher further wants to analyse whether the guidelines which were
issued by the Apex Court in the Arnesh Kumar Case2 have been violated or not.

RESEARCH QUESTION:-

1. Whether the misuse is overshading the actual cruelty?

2. Whether the guidelines issued under the Arnesh Kumar case have been violated?

1
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Law and Justice and
Ors.
2
Godara, K. (2015). Misuse of section 498A IPC- Judicial Trend. PARIPEX- INDIAN JOURNAL OF
RESEARCH, 213-215.

3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

The research is based on secondary data and different judgements given by the Supreme Court
as well as by the different High Courts. The author has relied on the latest judgements related
to the topic.

LITERATURE REVIEW:-

The issue of section 498A of the IPC misuse has been the subject of numerous studies. In an
investigation titled "Misuse of Section 498A IPC-Judicial Trend," Karan Godara (2015). The
study's objective was to assess the judicial trend regarding section 498A. The study concluded
that 498A is now regarded as a necessary evil. With a proviso, it must stay in our statutory
books to provide the much-needed safety of women.

Discrimination of men under Sec. 498A IPC: Myth or Reality?, a study conducted by
Samarthya Pandey and Debashree, indicated that 498A is actually being abused by women
against their husbands and in-laws. This study used instances from the Raipur district as its
subject matter, and questionnaires were used for the research process. It was decided that the
required actions for the changes must be taken.

Criminal Law (Second Amendment) act, 1983

Section 498-A was brought into the statute book in the year 1983. The objects and Reasons for
introducing section 498-A IPC can be gathered from the statement of Objects and Reasons of
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) act, 1983, and read as under;

“The increasing number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of
the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine
the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cases of cruelty by the husband and
relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the helpless
woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty.
It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases
of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws.”3

3
The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983

4
The object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code
was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the
wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.

498A. Husband or relative of the 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 purpose of this section, ―cruelty means:

(a). any wilful 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.

Ingredients of 498A

For the commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients
require to be satisfied:

1. The woman must be married;

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the
woman or by the relative of her husband.
This section’s bare perusal points out that the word ‘cruelty’ covers the occurrence of the
following Act(s)4:

1. any willful behaviour which might lead a woman to suicide or cause serious
damage or danger to life, limb, or life;
2. a woman’s health (mental or physical);

3. The harassment of a woman in the event of such harassment, with a view to

obliging her or any other person related to her to fulfil an illegal requirement for
any property or valuable security.

4
Ali, A. (2019). Misuse of anti-dowry laws: A dark side of marriage. International Journal of Law, 44-49.

5
In case of, Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu5, the Hon’ble Court held that in offences
under each of Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, cruelty may be a common element.
Nevertheless, the two sections are not reciprocally inclusive, each articulate offence connected
with guilty persons under section 304B of the dowry death offence shall be guilty of an offence
under section 498A of the IPC. Section 304B does not contain its definition, but further applies
in section 304B the concept of cruelty or abuse specified in section 498-A. Under section 498A
of the IPC, cruelty alone amounts to a related crime, while under Section 304B the offence
relates to gift death and that death should have occurred during the seven-year marriage period.
However, no such sum is stated in section 498A.

Constitutionality of the Amendment:

Regarding the constitutionality of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, in Sushil Kumar Sharma
v. Union of India and Ors,6 it was held by the Supreme Court:

Provision of Section 498A of the Penal Code is not unconstitutional and ultra vires. The mere
possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. Hence plea
that Section 498A has no legal or constitutional foundation is not tenable. The object of the
provisions is the prevention of the dowry menace. But many instances have come to light where
the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motives. In such cases, the
acquittal of the Accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior
to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what
remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely
because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous
persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary
for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can
be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the
existing framework.

Misuse of the section 498A

The legislators created and inserted Section 498A into the legal system with the intention of
defending women against abuse, harassment, and other offences. However, when cross-
investigations were conducted to assess the efficacy of this legislation, there were more

5
2003 (1) AWC 344 SC, (2003) 2 CALLT 23 SC
6
6 SCC 281 : AIR 2005 SC 3100

6
acquittals than convictions. Thus, the Supreme Court, which implemented 498A with the
intention of protecting women from cruelty, now views it as legal extremism, because Section
498A's actual credibility is damaged by misuse.

According to Reports of the National Crime Record Bureau in 2005, for a total of 58,319 cases
reported Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, a total of 1,27,560 people were arrested, and
6,141 cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law. While in 2009 a total of
89,546 cases were reported, a total of 1,74,395 people were arrested and 8,352 cases were
declared false on account of mistake of fact or law.

Furthermore, according to Report of Crime in India, 2012 Statistics, National Crime Records
Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs showed that in the year of 2012, a total of 197,762 people
all across India were arrested Under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. The Report further
shows that approximately a quarter of those arrested were women that is 47,951 of the total
were perhaps mother or sisters of the husband. However, most surprisingly the rate of charge-
sheet filing for the year 2012, Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code was at an exponential
height of 93.6% while the conviction rate was at a staggering low at 14.4% only. The Report
stated that as many as 3,72,706 cases were a pending trial of which 3,17,000 were projected to
be acquitted. According to Report of Crime in India, 2013, the National Crime Records Bureau
further pointed out that of 4,66,079 cases that were pending in the start of 2013, only 7,258
were convicted while 38,165 were acquitted and 8,218 were withdrawn. The conviction rate of
cases registered Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code was also a staggering low at 15.6%.7

The apex court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors8. Observed
that “ Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at
the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential
to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may
drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life
or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand9. It is a matter of serious
concern that large number of cases continue to be filed Under Section 498A alleging
harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the
Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are

7
Presented by the apex court in Rajesh Sharma VS State Of U.P. and Ors.
8
AIR 2017 SC 3869
9
Explanation to Section 498A

7
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide.
At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At
times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the Accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.

In K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana10, it was also observed that: “The Courts should
be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

Arnesh Kumar case

The Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.11 has observed that the said
offence which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride
amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. The
Court has taken note of the statistics under "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by the
National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs which shows arrest of 1,97,762
persons all over India during the year 2012 for the offence Under Section 498-A. Showing
concern, the Court held that arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever
and the police had not learnt its lesson which is implicit and embodied in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Commenting on the police, the Court said:

It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of Independence, it is
largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a
friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been
emphasised time and again by the courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to
arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check
it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption.
The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a
handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives.

10
(2018) 14 SCC 452
11
(2014) 8 SCC 273

8
The Court, thereafter, has drawn a distinction between the power to arrest and justification for
the exercise of it and analysed Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 41 stipulates
when police may arrest without warrant. Scrutinising the said provision, the Court held as
under:

From a plain reading of the provision, it is evident that a person accused of an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which
may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer
only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as
aforesaid. A police officer before the arrest, in such cases, has to be further satisfied
that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further
offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the Accused from causing
the evidence of the offence to disappear, or tampering with such evidence in any
manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a
witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police
officer; or unless such Accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever
required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on
facts.

The court issued guidelines for the arrest of an individual for the offences committed under
498A;

1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when
a case Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is registered but to satisfy themselves
about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from
Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure;
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses Under
Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and
materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the Accused before
the Magistrate for further detention;
4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the Accused shall peruse the report
furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its
satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

9
 5. The decision not to arrest an Accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks
from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded
in writing;
6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Code of Criminal Procedure be served
on the Accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may
be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded
in writing;
7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police
officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be
punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial
jurisdiction.
8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate
concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

The court observed while providing the above guidelines, “Our endeavour in this judgment is
to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not
authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed
above, we give the following direction.”

The court further said in the case that the guidelines and the directions aforesaid shall not only
apply to the cases Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, but also such cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or
without fine.

Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors12.

The Supreme Court gave some directions in Rajesh Kumar &ors. V. State of U.P, to stop the
misuse of 498A. Which are: -

▪ Family Welfare Committee: - SC recommended the formation of family welfare

committees at the district level. Its work is to look deep into the complaints filed under section
498A and submit the reports to the magistrate.

12
AIR 2017 SC 3869

10
▪ Investigating officer: - The officer who would be investigating the case must be well-trained
within four months of delivery of the judgement issued to investigate the case. ▪ Issuance of
red corner notice: - Impounding of passports of those relatives of men, who reside outside
India, should not be a regular practice.

▪ Personal appearance: - The requirement of the personal appearance of family members

before the court is not necessary, especially when they live out of India.

Krishna Lal Chawla’s case:13-

This case is an example of the violation of guidelines issued by the apex court in the Arnesh
Kumar case. The case posed a typical example of frivolous litigants abusing court processes to
achieve their mischievous ends. In this case, the Magistrate was aware of the significant delay
in the filing of the private complaint by Respondent No. 2, and of the material improvements
from the earlier NCR which were made in the private complaint. It was incumbent on the
Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries,
and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind. However,
that was not done-the Magistrate issued a process against the Appellants, and this controversy
reached the Apex Court for disposal. The Apex Court finally set aside the impugned judgement
of the High Court and foreclose further frivolous litigation.

SUGGESTIONS

The primary goal of the law is to keep people from committing crimes. If a crime occurs, the
law is there to serve humanity with justice. However, there is a pressing need for reform when
the law itself becomes the basis for falsely accusing someone.

Here are some ideas, keeping the scenario in mind: -

1. Before enacting any reforms, it is imperative to modify the thinking of every authority
that contributes to the administration of justice for humanity. Both men and women are
different from one another. It should not be assumed that every time a man does
anything wrong, his wife is the defenceless victim.
2. It has been observed in some cases that the entire family, including the members who
have nothing to do with the married life of that couple, are dragged into the case and
are tortured in order to unnecessarily harass the family of the husband and the husband

13
AIR2021SC1381, (2021)5SCC435

11
 himself. Even the elderly and young family members are not exempt. Justice is dead as
a result.
3. In light of the widespread abuse of section 498A, it is imperative to stop these kinds of
accusations. If there is a penalty established for these kinds of acts, it might be done.
Penalties include jail time, fines, or both. It will be quite difficult to stop the usage if it
is not done.
4. The law can be made a little more lenient, but not such that the offenders gain and the
innocent suffer. It should be made compoundable, but only with the court's permission
so that if the woman files a complaint in a fit of passion and later realises the seriousness
of the mistake she committed, she can withdraw the complaint. It should be made non-
cognizable so that the accused person can only be arrested after obtaining solid
evidence. It won't fulfil its intended function if it is made bailable.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is accurate to say that Section 498A has turned into a bad thing and is proving
to be a nightmare for people who are innocent but have been the targets of a wife's vengeance.
Its inclusion in the legislation was done so that actual victims of cruelty committed by the
husband and his family may receive justice. But after examining the numbers, it appears that
section 498A is being used more as a tool to harass males than as a defence for the women who
are the targets of cruelty. More than just use is misuse. Therefore, it is imperative to take the
necessary, stringent measures to stop this unlawful practice; otherwise, the misuse of this
section would stifle the real, sincere calls for assistance from the actual victims of domestic
violence and cruelty.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. IPC (Second Amendment) Act of 1983

2. https://mynation.net/study-report-498a-1.htm
3. https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/section-498a-of-ipc-its-use-
misuse-html
4. Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
5. Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330
6. Bibi Parwana Khatoon V. State of Bihar (2017) 6 SCC 792
7. Rajesh Kumar &Ors v. State of U.P. (2017 SCC Online SC 821)
8. Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR2021SC1381,
(2021)5SCC435

13