The number of cases pending under Section 498A of IPC has been gradually increasing since

2006.

Number of cases pending under Section 498A has increased by 2.6 times in 13 years

The number of cases pending under Section 498A has steadily increased since 2006. From 2006
to 2017, an annual average increase of 10% was observed in the number of pending cases. In
2017, there was a drop in the number of cases. However, again in 2018, the number of pending
cases under this section has risen by 6%. In the span of these thirteen years, the number of
pending cases under 498A has more than doubled and increased by 161%.

Number of convictions in 2018 lowest in ten years.

The number of convictions under this section between 2006 and 2017 varied between 6000 and
8000 a year except in 2016. The year 2018 has reported the least number of convictions under
498A between 2006 & 2018. Only 4982 convictions were reported in 2018. Up to 2016, the
number of acquittals under this section witnessed an increase of 60% compared to 2006. Since
then, the number acquitted dropped to 34,153 in 2017 and to the lowest in the decade which is
31,691 in 2018. During the same period, the number of cases withdrawn has gradually increased.
Between 2006 and 2018, the number of cases withdrawn (or compromised) has increased by
70%.

Conviction rate falls to 13%

A comparison of the conviction rate of all IPC crimes and the cases under 498A reveals that the
conviction rate of the cases under 498A has continuously reduced. Data reveals that in the case
of all IPC crimes, the conviction rate dropped from 42.9% in 2006 to 38.5 in 2012. However,
between 2013 and 2018, the rate has increased continuously to reach 50%. In other words, one
out of every two cases under IPC, where trial has completed has resulted in a conviction. On the
other hand, the conviction rate of cases under 498A has drastically reduced from 21.9% in 2006
to 13% in 2018. Conviction rate of 498A cases in 2018 is almost a quarter of conviction rate of
all IPC crimes. Only 1 out of 7 cases under Sec 498A resulted in a conviction in 2018.

A comparison between the cases under 498A and all other IPC crimes shows that the conviction
rate of the cases under 498A has been diminishing. On one hand, in other IPC cases where trial
has been completed, one out of every two cases resulted in a conviction. While in 498A the
conviction rate of cases has exorbitantly decreased from 21.9% in 2006 to 13% in 2018.

It is set forth in the petition that Section 498-A IPC has been specifically enacted to protect the
vulnerable sections of the society who have been victims of cruelty and harassment. The social
purpose behind Section 498-A IPC is being lost as the rigour of the said provision has been
diluted and the offence has practically been made bailable by reason of various qualifications and
restrictions prescribed by various decisions of this Court including Rajesh Sharma and others v.
State of U.P. and another

It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the police is hesitant to arrest the accused on
complaint of married women and the same inaction is justified by quoting various judgments,
despite the fact that Section 498-A IPC discloses a non-bailable offence and sufficient checks
and balances have been provided in the law itself under Section 41 CrPC. To prevent arbitrary
and necessary arrest, the statute very clearly states that the police shall record reasons for
effecting arrest as well as for not arresting.

But Rajesh Sharma closes that chapter and the golden run for women’s rights
might just be over. Rajesh Sharma has done nothing dramatically new. In fact,
the case notices how several high courts, such as the Delhi high court in
the Chander Bhan case (2008) as well as the Madras high court, have jumped
in to rein in and “judicially acknowledge” the “misuse” of Section 498A, by
stipulating directions to the police on how to “investigate” complaints of cruelty
by a married woman. In fact, the top court itself stepped in to protect innocent
husbands and in-laws from harassment in the Arnesh Kumar case (2014)
when it had restrained police officers from automatically arresting the accused
in a complaint under section 498A and made action in such complaints
subject to magisterial oversight.

Why then should Rajesh Sharma merit singling out and criticism from

feminists? The only addition it brings is that it introduces the concept of a
‘Family Welfare Committee’, to be constituted in each district by the District
Legal Services Authority, which shall give a “report” to the police in a month
after “looking into” any complaint under Section 498A. Till such a report, “no
arrest should normally be made”. The court directed that such committees
should be peopled by “para legal volunteers/social workers/retired
persons/wives of working officers/other citizens” and should be imparted
“basic minimum training” and given “such honorarium as may be considered
viable”.

Perhaps the court, having completely bought into the narrative of “misuse”,
proceeds ahead with the conception that women “rush” into filing complaints
without thinking through the consequences. This threatens “reconciliation” and
also endangers “senior citizens” and women who are the in-laws at risk of
arrest and police action. The reason why many women felt compelled to
exploit the criminal remedy was that the law either offered her the bhramastra
of 498A with the police, arrest, jail and the attendant pressures of settlement
or the languid civil option of fighting a contested, expensive and meandering
matrimonial suit. There was nothing in the middle – a halfway house which
could provide a woman facing domestic violence emergency relief of shelter,
medical assistance and child custody, and restraining contact with a battering
husband without having to throw her husband into prison. 

Since the Section 498A was subject matter of controversy, the Supreme Court observed that it
was often being "used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives”. In Social Action
Forum for Manav Adhikar case, the judgment of Rajesh Sharma came into question and the
directions given in the same was modified. The direction given by the Court in Rajesh Sharma
was targeted and criticized by the feminist. Shaken by the all-round criticism by the women’s
movement, Supreme Court in Social Action Forum Manav Adhikar case has to overrule the
direction given by Rajesh Sharma. Rajesh Sharma has done nothing dramatically new. As far as
the matter regarding the arrest of accused, in Arnesh Kumar case, Police officers were
restrained from directly arresting the accused without preliminary investigation and police shall
record reasons for effecting arrest. The only new concept that Rajesh Sharma case introduces
was the constitution of Family Welfare Committee in every district by Legal Service Authority
and it should give a monthly report of any complaint under Section 498A.