Over a month ago, I wrote the following representation to the Prime Minister of Inida, the Law Miniser and the Chairman, Law Commission. Needless to say that none of the three or their office have responded to this socially important issue. The Prime Minister is too busy doing nothing; the Law Minister is busy, having bungled the Judges' Assets Disclosure Bill; Chairman of Law Commission, none knows what is he upto.

QUOTE

To

The Prime Minister of India,

South Block,

Raisina Hills,

New Delhi – 110001.

Dear sir,

I write this letter to you as a concerned citizen and a legal professional. I crave for your valuable attention for a few minutes:

Section 498A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code 1860 by the Criminal Laws (amendment) Act, 1983. By this provision, the Parliament had decided to put an end to harassment of daughters-in-law in their marital home for dowry demands, which frequently culminated in “bride-burning”. The provision enables the State to prosecute the husband and the relative of the husband of the woman when they subject the woman to cruelty.

Over a period of time, the courts have come to recognise that this provision is one of the most rampantly misused provision in the IPC. After examining the large number of cases of acquittal under this provision, the superior courts such as the High Courts and the Supreme Court have cautioned the lower courts and the police not to be trigger-happy when it comes to booking cases under this provision. Very often, this provision is used to coerce the husband and the in-laws to part with huge ransom running into a few millions of rupees. In divorce cases, wince the family courts award lesser alimony, the married girls and their families have found Section 498A, a potent weapon for forcing settlement according to their wish.

This provision has given birth to new breed of police station lawyers, who are adept at drafting false complaints and guiding the married girls to pursue this malicious prosecution. Very often, innocent and respectable people are arrested without so much as preliminary investigation by the police. This provision has become a blank cheque in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers and the police, not to speak of the biggest beneficiaries of this racket, the married girls. The proceedings of divorce and maintenance before the Family Courts are perverted in this manner by abuse of this provision.

The provision is made draconian by treating the offence under this provision as “non-bailable” and “congnizable” under the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Being cognizable, the police can arrest the parents and husband without an arrest warrant. Being non-bailable, no court can grant bail, without hearing the opposition by the public prosecutor. Thus, the accused are compelled to spend a day in jail, though in judicial custody. A day spent as State Guest in the jail and the stigma and ignominy attached to arrest and imprisonment is sufficient to break the will of any typical middleclass person. Money changes hand at every stage before the case ends and husbands lose jobs driving the families to penury.

I humbly place the proposal before you to take steps to amend the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 so that the offence under section 498A is made non-cognizable and bailable. That is, a married woman or her relative intent on commencing the proceeding must file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C before a magistrate of first class and the bail can be granted by the trial court at its discretion.  This step will reduce the rigors of this provision and prevent abuse of Section 498A by people with no scruples and conscience. The proceedings will be brought under judicial control instead of remaining under the control of the police as it now is. As long as the provision stands on the statute book as a cognizable and non-bailable offence, the abuse of Section 498A will be continue to occur relentlessly.

There is urgent need to bring about this amendment, as Section 498A has been creating fear psychosis amongst newly married husbands and parents who have married or marriageable sons. Such a trend does not augur well for the society.

I wish to state that I have no axe to grind in this matter. Having observed in the court rooms the number acquittals under this provision as also the plight of innocent victims of this provision, I have decided to write this representation in the larger interest of the society. I hope that my fervent plea will receive urgent attention that it merits and will be acted upon.

Yours faithfully,

B.N.GURURAJ,

Advocate.

UNQUOTE