It is often alleged that false cases of cruelty are registered by the police at the behest of the estranged wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and many innocent relatives of the husband are roped in overzealously. This Section, along with Section 304B on dowry deaths , was brought in to check the menace of increasing dowry deaths and the cruelty meted out to married women by their in-laws in 1983. But its misuse has outraged many since then. Similarly, allegations are levelled sometimes for the misuse of certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This special law was enacted to remove the discrimination faced by the SC and ST communities, who remain vulnerable and are sometimes denied their civil rights. But it is alleged that, at times, cases are registered to settle personal scores.
Judgment modified
Realising the misuse of Section 498A, the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) issued certain guidelines , including the formation of district Family Welfare Committees (FWCs), restraint on arrest till the complaint was examined by the committee, the disposal of the proceedings by a senior judicial officer in case of a settlement between the parties, etc. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar vs Union of India modified the same judgment, stating that most of the directions had the potential to enter into the legislative field, which was not permissible. It was held that the constitution of the extrajudicial FWCs was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra (2018), taking cognisance of the abuse of the process of the courts with regard to certain provisions of the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, issued certain guidelines, including the holding of a mandatory preliminary inquiry to avoid false implication of an innocent individual, the approval of the appointing authority before the arrest of a public servant, etc.
However, in 2019, the Supreme Court in Union of India vs State of Maharashtra and Ors ., overruled the above judgment and held that the guidelines were opposed to the protective discrimination given to members of SC and ST communities as envisaged under the Constitution. Lodging a false report, the court said, “is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor”.
Genuineness of allegations
These judgments indicate that the courts cannot lay additional guidelines when the existing law is unambiguous and only legislature can modify such law in its wisdom. This also means that the onus is on the police to ensure that once the law is set into action, no undue advantage of the special law is taken by the complainant. The investigating officer must not jump to conclusions as soon as a First Information Report (FIR) is registered. Some investigation must be done to confirm the genuineness of a complaint before an arrest takes place. It is a settled law that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation. The arrest must be necessary and justified. Mere authority to arrest is not sufficient.
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014), asked the police to satisfy themselves on the necessity of an arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 of the CrPC. Police officers, in fact, are duty-bound to ensure that the principles set by the Supreme Court in its various judgments are implemented by the investigating officers. Further, the judicial magistrate is also required to peruse the report furnished by the police officer and satisfy themselves before authorising further detention.
Though there are legal remedies available against those lodging false reports, the general perception, however, is that the remedial measures are not only insufficient but also ineffective. The first remedial measure is to initiate criminal action against the person who gives false information to the police or levels specific criminal charges against a person. The police, after completing the investigation, may initiate action under Section 182 or 211 of the IPC respectively. However, both these offences are non-cognisable and a magistrate’s nod is necessary for initiating further legal action. The court, on its own, in certain cases directs the police to take action under these Sections if, on the completion of the trial, it is found that the allegations were completely false.
Second, the complaint may be filed before a judicial magistrate having jurisdiction, who, after an inquiry, can take appropriate action against a person who filed a false case with the police. Third, the complainant may approach a High Court for anticipatory bail and for quashing the FIR. The Supreme Court recently held that even in non-compoundable cases that are not so serious or private in nature, the High Court, using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may quash the judicial proceedings even after a conviction, in case a genuine compromise is reached between the warring parties. The Law Commission, in its 243rd report in 2012, had suggested making Section 498A compoundable with the permission of the court, but it was not accepted by the Government. Fourth, in addition to the above, damages may be claimed under the law of tort for malicious prosecution and causing injuries.
What data show
As per data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in the report Crime in India 2020 , about 5% of the cases under Section 498A were found to be false. About 9.4% were either non-cognisable or civil in nature or with insufficient evidence in the end. Similarly, about 12% of the cases under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were found to be false by the police, and about 7% were either non-cognisable or civil in nature or with insufficient evidence in the end.
Further, out of the 17,765 cases under Section 498A decided by the courts, 3,425 cases ended with a conviction. Out of the 8,138 cases under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act decided by the courts, 3,588 cases ended with a conviction. Although there are varied reasons for acquittal, including a delay in lodging the FIR, witnesses turning hostile, compromise between the parties, lack of proper presentation by the prosecution and an appreciation of the evidence by the court, etc., the problem arises when a court concludes that a case is false.
Since the onus of arriving at the truthfulness of a case lies primarily with the investigating officer, it is their duty to investigate the case thoroughly and collect all the facts and circumstances fearlessly. This would ensure that false cases are closed in time and no innocent individuals have to suffer the rigours of the law.
R.K. Vij is a senior IPS officer in Chhattisgarh
