APPLICATION OF RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ON

SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860

BA LLB
SEMESTER-8
SUBMITTED BY: BRAHM SAREEN
ROLL NO: 01716503820
SUBMITTED TO: MS. SARITA
(PROF. IOS)

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTH UNIVERSITY
DWARKA
NEW DELHI, 110075, INDIA,
2024
 APPLICATION OF RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ON
SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860

ABSTRACT:
The article delves into the inherent flaws of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
its unfortunate tendency to be misused by certain individuals. Employing the tools of
statutory interpretation, particularly the Mischief rule and Strict construction of penal
statutes, the article seeks to identify methods through which this misuse can be mitigated. It
further scrutinizes court judgments pertaining to Section 498A, where the judiciary has
applied principles of statutory interpretation, demonstrating how these principles can be
instrumental in curbing the abuse of this provision. A comprehensive legal approach is
indispensable, one that not only protects and empowers women but also effectively combats
the misuse of the law.

INTRODUTION:
In response to a concerning surge in instances of cruelty against women, particularly within
marital settings, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was introduced in 1983. This
legislative provision was a direct response to address the distressing reality where women
were subjected to various forms of abuse and mistreatment by their husbands or their
families. Its primary aim was to provide a legal recourse for women facing such atrocities
and to serve as a deterrent against such behavior. Over the years, our society has undergone
significant transformations, leading to advancements in the social status of women. However,
despite progress, disparities persist, especially in rural areas, where women continue to face
challenges in accessing justice and equality. While women today are more educated and
aware of their rights, vulnerabilities remain, particularly in the context of marital
relationships.

Marriage often entails a transition to unfamiliar environments for women, exposing them to
potential mistreatment and exploitation by unscrupulous families. Section 498A was designed
as a protective measure, intended to safeguard women from such abuses and to uphold their
dignity and well-being. However, a disheartening trend has emerged wherein educated and
informed women, instead of utilizing these legal provisions as a shield against injustice,
resort to misusing them for personal vendettas or acts of revenge. This misuse not only
undermines the spirit of the law but also erodes trust in the legal system's ability to deliver
justice impartially.

Section 498A of the IPC delineates the offense of cruelty by husbands or their relatives
towards women, stipulating penalties that include imprisonment for up to three years and
fines for those found guilty. While this provision serves a vital purpose in protecting
vulnerable individuals, its misuse highlights the need for a balanced approach to ensure that
justice is served without undue prejudice or abuse of legal mechanisms. In essence, while
Section 498A represents a crucial legal instrument in the fight against domestic violence and
abuse, its effective application requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities
surrounding gender dynamics and marital relationships. Upholding the principles of justice
and fairness demands a vigilant approach to prevent both the perpetration of cruelty against
women and the wrongful exploitation of legal provisions for personal gain.

It is imperative to highlight that the offence outlined within this section is deemed cognizable
and non-bailable. The cognizable nature of this transgression affords certain individuals,
particularly women who possess a comprehensive understanding of its gravity, the
opportunity to exploit it unjustly. They may resort to harassment against their in-laws,
leveraging false and malicious complaints. The prevalence of over-implication is underscored
by statistical data concerning cases under Section 498A. Many adjudicated cases have
revealed unjustified implication of the husband's relatives. It is evident that women,
particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds in rural areas, seldom
utilize this provision.

This article will subsequently delve into an analysis and examination of pertinent tools for
interpretation. It aims to pinpoint lacunae and loopholes within the scope of interpretation,
while also proposing effective measures to suppress misuse within the framework of this
provision.

MISUSE OF 498A
A preliminary examination of Section 498A reveals that a provision initially intended to
safeguard women from spousal torture and harassment by relatives has regrettably been
misused to target husbands and their families. The Supreme Court, in a notable decision,
emphasized that the provision is meant to serve as a shield rather than a weapon of
destruction.1 However, instances of misuse and exploitation of these provisions have been so
egregious that they strike at the very foundation of marriage, posing a significant threat to
societal well-being.2

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has cautioned against the unleashing of a new form of legal
terrorism through the misuse of Section 498A.3 This sentiment was echoed in the 2003
Malimath Committee report, which highlighted widespread complaints about the gross
misuse of the provision and recommended necessary amendments.4

Section 498A of the IPC is sometimes criticized as being biased towards women, as it
provides protection exclusively to women in cases of spousal and familial abuse. A close
examination of the section reveals underlying complexities that can potentially impact society
at large. According to social activists, affluent urban women are exploiting Section 498A to
secure independence and separate from their spouses and families, often after coercing
concessions such as monetary settlements or property. Consequently, the provision has
garnered the stigma of being labeled as 'legal terrorism,' as its biased application towards
women becomes particularly egregious when wielded maliciously.

APPLICATION OF RULES OF INTERPRETATION ON 498A:

The primary purpose of this article is to understand how application of rules of interpretation
over Section 498A of IPC, 1860 could curb its misuse and prevent blatant misuse of the law.
There are various rules of interpretation such as the mischief rule, strict construction rule,
literal rule, rule of legal fiction etc. However for the pupose of this paper, we shall deal with
2 rules specifically:

1
S.R. Subaashini and M. Kannappan, A Study on Cruelty against Married Women and Legal Framework in
India (Section 498A), 119 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS 1381
(2018).
2
Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand And Ors., 2003 CriLJ 2759.
3
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI, 2005 (6) SCC 266.
4
Vasundhara, Use And Misuse of Section 498A, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (March 22, 2024, 1:15 PM),
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-652-use-and-misuse-of-section-498a.html.
MICHIEF RULE:
In delving into Section 498A of the IPC through the prism of the Mischief Rule, a deeper
understanding emerges regarding its intended purpose and potential for misuse mitigation.
The Mischief Rule, often regarded as Heydon’s rule or Purposive Construction approach,
comes into play when statutory language admits of various interpretations. It mandates that
courts interpret statutes in a manner that curtails mischief and advances remedies.
Analyzing Section 498A within this framework unveils significant insights:
1. The absence of legislation addressing matrimonial cruelty stemming from dowry
demands before 1983 underscores the necessity for this provision.
2. Section 498A was specifically enacted to counteract the cruelty inflicted by
husbands and their families due to dowry demands against wives.
3. The provision includes stringent penal measures, allowing immediate arrest upon
the wife's complaint, underscoring its urgency in halting cruelty and serving as a
deterrent against further harm.
This examination illuminates legislative intent, empowering efforts to reinforce remedies in
alignment with the statute's true purpose. It underscores the imperative of interpreting statutes
according to legislative intent.

In landmark cases such as Heydon’s case and Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher5, the
judiciary emphasized discerning Parliament's intention by considering societal conditions
prompting legislation and the mischiefs it aimed to rectify. This approach breathes vitality
into statutory interpretation, aligning legal principles with legislative aims. However, it's
crucial to recognize the limitations of the Mischief Rule in addressing misuse arising from
vague language. For instance, the term "husband’s relative" in Section 498A has been
abused, leading to arbitrary accusations against distant family members residing far from the
marital home.

5
[1950] 2 All ER 1226.
Notable judicial clarifications in cases like State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh6 and Shivcharan
Lal Verma v. the State of M.P.7 limited the scope of "relative" to blood relations, relatives by
marriage, or adoption. This circumscribed arbitrary accusations, offering a safeguard against
misuse. Despite the Mischief Rule's efficacy in addressing ambiguities, the punitive nature
and procedural application of Section 498A persist in fostering misuse. Therefore,
complementing the Mischief Rule with the strict construction of penal statutes becomes
imperative to mitigate such abuse effectively.

RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION:

Strict Construction/Interpretation means each of the words in Statute should be interpreted by
letter and no regard should be had to the spirit beyond the statute. Liberal or beneficial
construction/interpretation means the interpretation should be made liberally with intention to
advance the purpose or object of the statute. Thus, in case of strict interpretation Courts may
prefer the literal rule while for liberal construction courts may prefer golden rule or mischief
rule.

Strict construction is the opposite of liberal construction, which permits a term to be

reasonably and fairly evaluated so as to implement the object and purpose of the document.
Generally, taxing and penal statutes are to be strictly construed while beneficial legislation
like ESI (Employees State Insurance) Act, Contract Labour Act or EPF (Employees
Provident Fund) Act should be liberally construed. Even in case of taxing statutes, beneficial
provisions should be liberally construed.

In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements8, it was held as follows:

(a) Provision of exemption should be strictly construed. It is not open to Court to ignore the
conditions prescribed in the exemption notification;
(b) Mandatory rule must be strictly followed, while substantial compliance might suffice in a
directory rule;
(c) Whenever the statute prescribed that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner
and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe
consequences, such requirement is mandatory;

6
1996 AIR 1393.
7
AIRONLINE 2002 SC 715.
8
(2005) 1 SCC 368.
(d) It is the cardinal rule of the interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular
thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way;
and
(e) Where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed.

However it is pertinent to note that there are exceptions of application of strict construction
rule. Principal that penal statute is to be strictly construed is not of universal application.
Penal statute should be construed in a manner which will suppress mischief and advance the
object which the Legislature had in view.9

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh10, it was observed that Prevention of
Corruption Act is a social legislation defined to curb illegal activities of public servants and is
designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. Procedural delays and
technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the
Act.

Despite the deterrent nature of this rule, the punitive measures outlined in Section 498-A
often fail to effectively curb the commission of crimes, as some individuals, particularly
those well-versed in legal matters, exploit them to settle personal scores.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar11, the Supreme Court highlighted how
Section 498-A, being a cognizable and non-bailable offense, has been misused by disgruntled
spouses as a weapon rather than a shield. This misuse is evident in crime statistics, with a
disproportionate number of arrests made under this section compared to the convictions
obtained. Such misuse not only undermines the intended purpose of the law but also leads to
the unjust harassment and arrest of individuals, including innocent relatives remotely
connected to the alleged incidents.

While it is crucial to interpret penal statutes strictly, it is equally important to lean towards
leniency when there are multiple interpretations. Individuals charged under such laws have

9
Lalita Jalan v. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 107.
10
AIR 2000 SC 575.
11
Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014.
the right to contest, arguing that while the punishment may adhere to the letter of the law, it
does not align with its spirit.

It is incumbent upon the legislature to enact protective laws, and constitutional courts must
scrutinize these measures to ensure they effectively address social issues without enabling
abuse. Remedial measures should be implemented to prevent the misuse of well-intentioned
provisions, as constitutional validity does not justify allowing unscrupulous individuals to use
them for personal vendettas or harassment.

Furthermore, the courts have emphasized the profound impact of arrests, highlighting the
humiliation and lasting scars they inflict. Law enforcement agencies must heed the implicit
lessons embedded in the Code of Criminal Procedure and exercise restraint in carrying out
arrests, especially in cases where the evidence is scant or the charges appear motivated by
malice rather than genuine legal concerns. To understand the scenarios in which procedural
enactments are worked upon in cruelty cases, a review a CrPC is essential.

In accordance with Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)12, the authority of
police to make an arrest without a warrant hinges upon specific conditions. These conditions
include the commission of a cognizable offense within the officer's view, a reasonable
suspicion of an offense, or the receipt of a credible complaint. Additionally, the police must
justify the arrest in writing and conduct preliminary investigations before apprehending the
accused. Such arrests are warranted only when there is a perceived threat of further harm,
evidence tampering, societal endangerment, or flight from justice. The police officer must
satisfy the criteria outlined in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41(1) of the CrPC before
effecting an arrest.

It is evident from a plain reading of the provision that a person accused of an offense
punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years or up to seven years, with or
without a fine, cannot be arrested solely based on the satisfaction of the police officer
regarding the commission of such offense. The indiscriminate arrest of individuals solely
based on complaints must be avoided, with sentiments set aside. Both the alleged accused

12
The Code of Crimial Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), s.41.
and the aggrieved must be questioned thoroughly, and complaints examined in their true
context before any arrest is made.

Section 41A of the CrPC supplements Section 41(1) by stipulating that when arrest is not
mandated, the police officer must issue a notice to the alleged accused to appear at a specified
time and place. Only upon the failure of compliance can an arrest be made. By adhering
diligently to these procedural provisions, the burden on the courts with multiple anticipatory
bail applications can be reduced, ensuring that only valid cases with substantive evidence
reach the judicial system.

The stringency of a provision in a criminal statute may necessitate its tempering by

emphasizing correct procedural usage. Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, arrests
should be made only after satisfying the parameters laid down in Section 41 of the CrPC. To
facilitate this, police officers should be equipped with checklists containing specified sub-
clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).

Procedures are meant to serve justice and not impede it. Technical misuse acts as stumbling
blocks, delaying and impeding substantive justice. Arrests should not be made routinely
based solely on allegations without a reasonable investigation to ascertain the genuineness
and bona fides of the complaint and a reasonable belief in the person's complicity and the
necessity of arrest.

In the case of Rajesh Sharma and ors. v. State of UP13, the court introduced guidelines to
mitigate the misuse of Section 498A, including the establishment of family welfare
committees in each district to assess complaints before any arrest is made. By judicially
interpreting the law and issuing directives to ensure proper implementation of procedural
laws, the legislature and judiciary seek to strike a balance without deviating from the essence
and language of the sections involved.

SUGGESTION:
Now lies the duty upon the legislature and law reform committees to enact and suggest
necessary changes. Consideration should be given to making the offense bailable in cases

13
2018 (10) SCC 472.
devoid of physical harm, coupled with the imposition of fines on individuals found guilty of
lodging false complaints. The socio-economic background of women must be taken into
account, prioritizing the protection and education of those from disadvantaged backgrounds
over those who exploit legal provisions for personal vendettas. Amendments to the law are a
welcome consequence of thorough interpretation and analysis.

It is essential to ensure fair procedures and practical implementation to prevent injustice and
undue hardship. Interpretation holds the key to achieving this objective.

The legislature should devise means to address frivolous complaints or allegations

effectively. In the absence of legislative action, the courts must navigate such situations
within the confines of existing laws.

Strict adherence to penal codes should not lead to counterproductive outcomes; rather, it
should strive for effectiveness. Statutes of this nature demand fair interpretation and
application in accordance with legislative intent, avoiding undue severity or leniency. Courts,
when in doubt, should err on the side of mercy. While all penal statutes warrant strict
construction, it is vital to ensure that offenses align with the clear meaning of the words used.
Courts should avoid stretching interpretations beyond legislative intent. Any adverse
consequences of legislation must be rectified promptly.

CONCLUSION:
After a meticulous examination and application of statutory interpretation principles, it
becomes evident that the shortcomings of Section 498A can be addressed effectively when
interpretation tools are wielded judiciously. These tools serve as potent instruments in closing
loopholes, rectifying legislative gaps, and aligning statutes with the evolving social milieu.
The Mischief Rule, for instance, played a crucial role in construing the term 'relative' within
the ambit of Section 498A of the IPC, thereby limiting the scope of individuals prosecutable
under this provision. Given instances where even distant relatives fell victim to malicious
accusations under this stringent law, it became imperative to interpret the law's intention and
scope to eradicate such mischievous applications.

In response to the escalating number of acquittals under Section 498A and to alleviate the
burden of unnecessary case accumulation, the courts introduced regulations. Through the lens
of strict construction of penal laws, efforts were made to strike a balance between facilitating
justice and mitigating injustices. The courts meticulously interpreted accessory procedural
laws to ensure the proper implementation of Section 498A. It would be remiss to deny the
prevalence of dowry-related cruelty against women by their spouses and in-laws in
contemporary society. The practice of dowry continues to persist, necessitating legal
safeguards to protect women from such egregious acts. However, it would also be
shortsighted to overlook the need for adequate reforms and improvements in provisions
enacted decades ago.

Law and society share a symbiotic relationship, both evolving in tandem. It is imperative to
recognize that interpretative rules prove invaluable when laws themselves become
problematic. These rules empower courts to draw conclusions that transcend the literal
meaning of words, extracting insights from textual elements and aligning conclusions with
the spirit rather than just the letter of the law.