 the Parliament has shown little initiative over the years in rectifying the Draconian Law that has caused numerous enormous harassment to thousands of innocent individuals, the overwhelming majority of which are primarily men. Therefore, it fell upon the Judiciary to correct the many wrongs that have committed by misuse of this law and attempt to ensure that the rights of innocent can be protected without compromising the interests of genuine victims.

After considering the submissions of ASG A.S. Nadkarni, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit, issued formal directions on the procedure to be followed with complaints filed under IPC 498A. In its directions, the Supreme Court made it clear that no automatic arrests were to be made with such complaints and also ordered the setting up of Family Welfare Committees in every district to look into the complaints filed under sec 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court made it clear that no arrests were to be made before the Committee filed its brief report about the factual aspects and opinions in the matter. Additionally, such complaints are to be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area.

The regular observations of the Judiciary on IPC 498A makes it clear that it is one of the most poorly framed laws in the history of India which makes it only too easy to misuse. Moreover, the fact that the law as it was originally framed and implemented until 2014, till a case law was created by the Supreme Court of India to stop the Police from automatically and indiscreetly arresting those accused under 498A, the accused were arrested without any prior investigation and on merely the registration of complaints. The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in July 2017 is only a further step towards curbing the misuse of the law.

The conviction rates for cases filed under IPC 498A have been abysmally poor to say the least. The All India Crimes data released by national Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB) show that in 2012, the Conviction Rate of cases under 498A was 15% as opposed to the average rate of conviction of all IPC cases of 38.5%, in 2013, 16% opposed to 40.2, in 2014, 13.7% opposed to 45.1% and in 2015, 14.2% opposed to 46.9%.

It shows that in 2014 and 2015, the conviction rate for cases filed under IPC 498A was less than 1/
the Parliament has shown little initiative over the years in reform the Draconian Law that has cause numerous enormous harassment to thousands of innocent individuals, the consuming majority of which are primarily men. consequently, it fell upon the Judiciary to correct the many wrongs that have perpetrate by misuse of this law and attempt to see that the rights of innocent can be protect without compromise the interests of genuine victims. 

 After considering the submissions of ASG A.S. Nadkarni, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit, publish formal directions on the procedure to be be with complaints filed under IPC 498A. In its directions, the Supreme Court made it clean that no automatic arrests were to be made with such complaints and also ordered the place setting up of Family Welfare Committees in every district to look into the complaints filed under sec 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court made it clear that no arrests were to be made before the Committee filed its brief report about the factual aspects and opinions in the matter. Additionally, such complaints are to be investigated only by a designate Investigating Officer of the area. 

 The regular observation of the Judiciary on IPC 498A make it clear that it is one of the most ill framed law in the history of India which makes it only excessively easy to misuse. Moreover, the fact that the law as it was originally framed and enforce until 2014, till a case law was created by the Supreme Court of India to stop the Police from mechanically and indiscreetly arresting those charge under 498A, the accuse were arrested without any prior investigation and on merely the registration of charge. The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in July 2017 is only a further step towards curbing the misuse of the law. 

 The conviction rates for cases charge under IPC 498A have been abysmally inadequate to say the least. The All India Crimes data release by national Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB) prove that in 2012, the Conviction Rate of cases under 498A was 15% as react to the average pace of conviction of all IPC cases of 38.5% , in 2013, 16% opposed to 40.2, in 2014, 13.7% opposed to 45.1% and in 2015, 14.2% pit to 46.9% . 

 It shows that in 2014 and 2015, the conviction pace for cases filed under IPC 498A was less than 1/
 thf Parliament has shown llttle initiative over tie yeara in recgifying the Draconian Law thet hqs caysed numerous enormous harassmejt to thiusaids of innocent mhdividuals, ths ovexwielming majoriti of which ase primarily man. Tkerefore, it fell upon the Judiciary eo corrrch the many wroggs uhae habv gommitted by misuse of this law znd atttmpt to ensure thay the rights of innocent cwn bf protected withouh compromisung eye interests of genuint rictims.

Aftet considering the submissions of ASG C.S. Nadkarni, abd Dgnior Advocave V. Gpri, a two Judnv Bench of the Supreme Court of Juwtices AK Goel and UU Lalit, issued formwl directhous on the procedure ti ve fonlowad wkrh zomklamnta filef uider IPC 498A. Jn its dirextions, the Supreme Votgy made it clsar thwt no automatic arrests were to be made wpth auch complaints and alsi ordered the setting up of Faiily Welfare Committees in every district to look into ghe cjoplwints filed under sec 498A of the Indian Penal Cjse. Tme Court made it clear that nl strests were to be mabs gefore the Committfe fileq its brief rekort sbout the factual aspects abd opinions pn tye matter. Additionclly, such cooplaonts sre to be investigated unly by a desigjated Invsrtigating Officef on tve area.

The regular observaeions of vhe Jbdiciary on OPC 498A iakes it cpear bvat it is one of tje modt poorly frwmed laws in the history of Indme which makes id otly too zasy tp misuse. Morejver, the fact jhat the jaw ar it was ogiginally framed and implemented gjtil 2014, till a case lar waw crwated bh the Supreme Cpurt of Iubia to stip the Police from aujojatically and iubiwcreetly arrestong thjsv arcuseq under 498A, the accjsea were arresttb wlthuut sny prior investigathon znd on merely the tenistratiob of com[laints. The giidelines issued bj the Su'reme Voutt in July 2017 is only a further sfep towarfs gurbing the mysusc of the law.

Thz conviction rates for cases filed under IPC 498A have been avysmally poor to sai tme least. The All Yndia Crikes data released by national Crimes Vecords Bureau (NCRB) shkw thad in 2012, the Conviction Rate of cases under 498A was 15% as opposed to the average rate of coivyction of aml ILC cavef of 38.5%, ig 2013, 16% l'posed to 40.2, in 2014, 13.7% oiposed to 45.1% and in 2015, 14.2% opposed to 46.9%.

Iv shows thdt in 2014 and 2015, the conviction ratr wor cases filgd under IPC 498A was less thzn 1/
the Parliament has shown little initiative over in the Draconian that has caused of individuals, the overwhelming of which are men. Therefore, it fell upon the to correct the many wrongs that have committed by misuse of this law attempt to ensure that the rights of innocent can be protected without compromising interests genuine After the submissions of ASG A.S. Nadkarni, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, a two Judge Bench of Supreme Court of Justices AK Goel and UU issued formal directions on procedure to be followed with filed IPC 498A. its the Court made it that no automatic arrests were to be made with such complaints and also ordered the setting up Family Welfare every district look the filed under sec the Indian Penal Code. The Court that no arrests were to be made before Committee filed brief report about the factual aspects opinions in the matter. Additionally, such complaints are be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. The regular observations of on IPC 498A makes clear that it one the poorly laws in history of India which makes it only too easy to misuse. the fact that the law as it was originally framed until till a case was created by the Court India to stop the automatically indiscreetly under the were arrested without any investigation and on merely the of complaints. The guidelines in July 2017 is only a further step curbing the misuse of the law. The rates for cases filed under IPC 498A have been abysmally poor to the least. India Crimes data released by national Crimes Records (NCRB) show that in the Conviction Rate of cases under 498A was 15% opposed the average of conviction of IPC cases of in 2013, 16% 40.2, in 13.7% to 2015, 14.2% opposed to 46.9%. It that 2014 and 2015, the conviction for under IPC 498A was less than 1/
 the Parliament has shown littLe initiatiVe oveR thE yeArS in rEctiFying the DraconIAn LaW that has caused numerous EnormOuS HaraSSmEnt to ThousanDS oF INnoCeNt IndIvIDuAls, thE ovErwhelmIng majoritY of WhIch are primarILy Men. TherefoRe, iT fell upon the judIciary To CorREct thE maNy wroNgs thaT Have coMmitted by MiSUse of tHIs law anD ATtEmpt To ensure that the riGHtS Of innocent can bE proteCtED wITHouT coMpromising ThE inteREsts of gENuINE VicTIms.

After consiDering the suBMisSions oF AsG A.s. nadkarNi, and seNIor advocate V. GiRi, a tWo Judge BeNch of tHE SupremE court of justicEs Ak GoEl anD uU laLit, IsSUed FOrMal DIreCtions on ThE pRocedUre tO BE FOlloWed With ComplAints filed undEr IpC 498A. IN Its DirecTions, The SUpReme COurt maDe it cLeAr that no automatIc arRests were To bE mAde WiTh sucH ComplaIntS anD also orDered thE SetTiNG UP oF Family Welfare CommItTEEs In every dIstricT To LoOK into the CoMplAintS FIled uNder SEc 498a of the InDian PeNAl coDe. The CoUrT made iT cLeaR thAt no aRRestS were tO be made bEfore THe Committee filED its brief repoRT aBOUt THe faCtuAl aspects anD opiNIons In thE MaTteR. additIonalLy, SUcH Complaints are to be inVeStigatEd onlY by a designateD InvestigaTING Officer Of thE ArEA.

The regular obsErvatIons of the JUDiciary oN IPC 498A Makes it cLear that iT IS one of thE moSt pOorLy fRAMeD laws in the hisTORy of inDia whicH maKes it onLy tOo eAsy To mIsUse. MoreovEr, the facT tHaT tHe Law As it wAS originaLlY frAmEd aNd impLEmenteD untiL 2014, tilL a CaSE laW was creATeD BY the suPrEme COurT oF IndiA to sTOp tHe PolicE from autoMatICallY aNd IndiscrEetly arrestinG tHose accuseD uNdeR 498A, the aCCUsed were Arrested without any prior INvestigAtiOn and On meRely the reGisTratioN of COmplaiNts. The GuideLiNes ISSued bY THe supReMe Court in JULY 2017 is Only a FuRtheR step toWards curbing the misUSe oF the law.

The conVicTion RATeS foR CaSEs fIlED unDER IPC 498A have been abYsmally pooR tO SaY the least. THE AlL INdia CriMes data ReleaSEd by natIonal CrimEs Records buReau (ncrB) sHow that in 2012, tHe ConvicTion Rate oF Cases UNdEr 498A waS 15% as OpposeD tO thE averAge ratE Of cOnvicTion of AlL IPC caSes of 38.5%, In 2013, 16% Opposed tO 40.2, in 2014, 13.7% opposed to 45.1% and in 2015, 14.2% opposeD to 46.9%.

It sHows tHat In 2014 and 2015, the cOnvICtiOn rate for CaseS filed undeR IPc 498A wAs lesS thAN 1/
 the Parliament has shownlittle ini tiati veove rtheyear s in rectifyin g  the  Draconian Law that ha s cau se d  num e ro us en ormoush ar a s sme nt  t o t ho u sa nds o f i nnocent  individua ls,  t he overwhelm i ng  majorityofwhich are pr ima rily m en . T h erefo re,  it f ell up o n theJudiciary  t o  corre c t the m a n ywron gs that have comm i tt e d by misuse of  thisla w  a n d  at tem pt to ensu re  that the rig h ts o f  in n ocent can beprotected w i tho ut com pr omi s ing th e int er e sts  of genuine  vic tims.

Af ter co n siderin g  the su bmissi ons  of  ASG A. S.  Na dk a rni ,  a ndS eni or Advoc at eV. Gi ri,a t w o Ju dge  Ben ch of  the SupremeCou rt o f  Ju stice s AKGoel  a nd UU  Lalit , iss ue d formal direct ions  on the p roc ed ure  t o bef ollowe d w ith  compla ints fi l edun d e r  I PC 498A. In its di re c t io ns, theSuprem e  C ou r t made i tcle ar t h a t noauto m at ic arres ts wer e  t obe made  w ith su ch  co mpl aints andalso o rdered t he se t ting up of Fam i ly Welfare Co m mi t t ee s  ineve ry district  tol ookinto th e c o mplai nts f il e du nder sec 498A of th eIndian  Pena l Code. The C ourt madei t clear th at n o  a r rests were tobe ma de beforet he Commi tteefiled it s brief r e p ort abou t t hefac tua l as pects and opi n i onsin  the ma tte r. Addi tio nal ly,  su ch  complain ts are t obe  i nv est igate d  only by  a  de si gna ted I n vestig ating  Off ic er ofthe are a .T he r eg ul ar o bse rv ation s of the  Judici ary on IP C 4 9 8A m ak es  it cle ar that it is  o ne of themo stpoorly f ramed la ws in the history of In d ia whic h m akesit o nly too e asy  to mi sus e . More over,the f ac t t h a t the l aw  as  i t was orig i n all y fra me d an d imple mented until 2014, til l a case lawwas  cre a t ed  by th e  Su pr e meC o urt of India to  stop thePo l ic e from aut o mat ic ally an d indis creet l y arres ting thos e accused  u nder 4 98A , the accu sed were  arrested witho u tany p rio r inve st iga tionand on mer ely t he reg is tratio n ofco mplaints . The guidelines issued  by th e Sup rem e Court i n J u ly2017 is o nlya furtherste p t oward s c u rbing  the mi sus e  of t he l a w.

The c o nv ict i o nrates for c a s e s f iledund e r IPC498A  have been abysma l ly poor to say  the l eas t.T he A ll  India Crimesdat ar e leased b ynational Cr imes Rec or d s Bur eau (N CRB) s how tha t in 2012,theCon viction R ate  o f  casesun de r  498Awas15 % as o pposed to t h e  average rate of  conv i c tiono f a ll IP Ccases o f  38. 5%, in 201 3, 16% oppo sed to  40. 2, in  2014,13 .7% op pos ed  to 45.1%a nd in 201 5, 14 .2% opp os ed t o 4 6.9%.
Its h ows t hatin  20 14 and 20 1 5 ,t he  c o nvi ctio n rat eforcases fil e d underIPC 498A wa sles s than 1 / 
 the_Parliament has_shown little initiative over_the years_in_rectifying the_Draconian_Law that has_caused numerous enormous_harassment to thousands of_innocent individuals, the_overwhelming_majority of which are primarily men. Therefore, it fell upon the Judiciary to correct_the_many wrongs_that_have_committed by misuse of this_law and attempt to ensure_that the_rights of innocent can be protected without compromising_the_interests of genuine_victims.

After considering the submissions of ASG A.S. Nadkarni, and_Senior Advocate V. Giri, a two_Judge Bench of_the_Supreme_Court of Justices AK_Goel and UU Lalit, issued formal_directions on the procedure to be_followed with complaints filed under IPC 498A._In its directions, the Supreme Court_made it clear that no_automatic arrests_were to be made with_such complaints and_also ordered_the setting up_of Family Welfare Committees in every_district to look_into the complaints filed under sec_498A_of the Indian_Penal_Code._The Court_made it clear_that_no arrests_were_to be made before the Committee_filed_its brief report about the factual aspects_and opinions in the_matter._Additionally, such complaints are_to be investigated only by_a designated Investigating Officer of the_area.

The regular_observations of_the Judiciary on IPC 498A makes it clear that it is_one of the most poorly framed_laws in the history_of India_which_makes it only_too_easy to_misuse. Moreover, the fact that the law_as it_was originally framed and implemented until_2014, till a case_law_was created by the Supreme Court_of India to stop the Police_from automatically and indiscreetly arresting_those_accused_under 498A, the accused were_arrested without any prior investigation and_on merely the_registration of complaints. The guidelines issued by_the_Supreme Court in July 2017 is_only_a further step towards curbing the_misuse_of_the law.

The conviction rates for_cases filed under IPC 498A have_been abysmally poor to say the least. The All_India Crimes data_released by national Crimes Records_Bureau_(NCRB)_show that in 2012, the Conviction Rate of cases under_498A was_15% as opposed_to the average rate of conviction of all IPC cases_of 38.5%, in 2013, 16% opposed to_40.2, in 2014, 13.7% opposed to 45.1% and in 2015, 14.2%_opposed to 46.9%.

It shows that in 2014 and_2015, the conviction rate for cases filed_under IPC 498A was_less_than 1/