Misuse of Section 498A IPC criticized By Bombay HC
Last Updated on August 7, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
Bombay HC division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale on Wednesday expresses concerns over the rampant misuse of Section 498A of IPC
They acknowledged sympathy for genuine victims but emphasized that the provision is often misused. They questioned why allegations extend beyond the husband to include other relatives, such as grandparents and bedridden family members, who then have to face trial. The judges clearly stated their disapproval of this practice.
In October 2022, HC sought the union government’s response on making Section 498A offenses compoundable. Justice relevant mohite noted that daily, at least 10 petitions seek quashing of Sec 498A by consent, causing a significant hardship for the parties involved. The difficulties include travel—litigation accommodation expenses, and the need for working individuals to take time off.
Judges further suggested in Sec 498A that Cases could be resolved if the union government clarifies whether these offenses can be compoundable.
Advocate DP Singh, representing the Union government requested more time to provide the government’s stance. Judges further noted that thousands of pending Sec 498A cases could resolved if the union government clarified whether these offenses can be made compoundable. Representing the union government, I requested more time to provide the government’s stance.
Justice Revati Mohit-Dere observed daily, at least 19 petitions seek to quash Section 498A by consent, causing significant hardships as well as the need for working individuals to take time off. The Nature of Sec 498A adds a burden.
The coordinate bench noted that Andhra Pradesh made Sec 498A compoundable in 2003 and ordered the Additional Solicitor General to address this issue with the concerned ministry. The order came from a plea by three family members seeking to quash proceedings under Section 498A. The petitioner resident of Pune and had to travel from Mumbai for hearings. The bench quashed the FIR against them after an amicable settlement, where the complainant agreed to quash the FIR upon receiving Rs.10 lakh out of 25 lakh as alimony.
Consequently, the hearing was adjourned until August 22.
Appearance: Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Adv. Datta Mane and Unnati Ghia.
Written By: Kirti Sharma
