Abetment of a Crime is not a Crime – NCW

Tax payer funded NCW has drawn up a list of sinister amendments to the laws relating to matrimonial disputes that are sure to cause further chaos and destabilization in the already fragile family relationships in India.

In this article, I am primarily focusing on the proposed amendments to the Dowry Prohibition act 1961.  These are the main points of NCW’s recommended amendments –

  • Dowry offenses must be treated as offenses against the state
  • Remove the time limit of one year to lodge complaints under this act
  • All dowry offenses must be cognizable and non-bailable
  • The burden of proof must be on the accused
  • Giving dowry is not a crime
  • Minimum term of seven years extendable up to ten years of imprisonment

 It is not clear why the dowry offense must be treated as offenses against the state, when the accusations are made by one citizen against the other. Already IPC Sec 498a allegations are inviting state prosecution. The truth about the widespread misuse of section 498a is already well known. The need of the hour is to study the enormous costs that are already incurred by public exchequer and the overburdened criminal justice system due to the abuse of existing provisions. It is not clear what NCW aims to accomplish by making any and all allegations of dowry harassment, crimes against the state. Doesn’t the state already have enough concerns in terms of keeping the law and order and prevention of terrorism?

NCW is recommending sections 7 and 8 of the act to be omitted. Section 7 stipulates that no court inferior to first class magistrate shall try any offence under this act. It further stipulates that complaint can be made within one year from the date of the offence.Section 8 stipulates that the offences under this act are non-cognizable and bailable.

We do not need much analysis to understand why NCW wants these sections to be dropped. They would like to remove the time limits for lodging complaints, so a woman in an unhappy marriage; or an otherwise errant woman can keep the option of filing a complaint (in most cases a false one) any time she pleases. Further, it is the intention of NCW to remove any aspects of this law that makes it non-cognizable and bailable. As the IPC Sec 498a is becoming synonymous with gross human rights violations and losing its edge, perhaps NCW wants the DP act 1961 to slowly slip into its shoes essentially fulfilling the same role.

Another interesting recommendation from NCW is – “Persons giving dowry are victims and hence it is not fair to punish them”. Of all the recommendations, this one takes the special honors. This recommendation would go down in the history of NCW as one of its most shameful crown jewels.

Let us reiterate the statement so it sinks in to our conscience – Persons giving dowry are victims and hence it is not fair to punish them.

Does “giving” precede “taking” or the reverse? If there are no givers, would there be any takers? If there are no stabbers, would there be any stabbed? If there are no pushers, would there be any pushed?

Logic dictates that if you strictly outlaw the practice of giving dowry with stringent penalties, the practice of dowry giving and hence its taking would cease very quickly. Although, the act in its current form treats giving dowry as an offense, one rarely finds an instance of dowry givers being prosecuted. But NCW’s intentions in making this particular recommendation, are quite different from what meet the eye.

Let me illustrate the point. Let us say A is the bride’s father and B is the groom’s father. 

A – We want to give 10 lakhs as present to our son-in-law on the occasion of our daughters wedding

B – But wait, we have nt decided on this marriage proposal yet. Our son appears not ready for marriage now.

A – In fact, I will register the 3 bed room apartment in the city as a wedding present to the new couple.

B – We are not sure. We don’t believe in taking dowry. Give us some more time to think about this alliance.

A – Please don’t say no. We already told all our relatives and neighbors that this alliance is settled. I will give another 10 lakhs. Your son is in the IT field. He is already earning close to 25 lakhs per year. I know what we are offering you, he can earn in less than a year. But, please consider this proposal.

B – OK! Whatever you give would be for the couple to setup their new matrimonial home.

And the wedding is performed. The girl’s father deposits ten lakhs in the bridegroom’s account. The day after the wedding, the girl returns to her natal family. The third day, the groom’s family receives a phone call from a mediator – 

“Our daughter is not interested in returning to her in-laws. We want to settle the case now. For one crore. If you do not agree, we will file a case under the ‘amended’ dowry prohibition act. Thanks to NCW, now it s a cognizable, non-bailable offense. It is also a crime against the state. The punishment can range up to ten years of imprisonment. You see, your son is still young – he is in a good job. We have proof. What we are asking for is not unreasonable. We will give you a day to think about”.

That is the ultimatum the groom’s family receives. What are the choices left for the so accused groom’s family after the proposed amendments by NCW are passed?

a)     Give into the blackmail

b)     Commit suicide

c)      Face imprisonment

In fact, all that a woman or her family have to do is to simply drop off a wad of cash in the husband’s house and immediately register a case of dowry against the husband’s household. The police can swoop down on the residence of the husband’s family and summarily arrest them while collecting the carefully left evidence by the dowry giver. Adding insult to the injury, now the burden of proving innocence is on the accused under the proposed amendments by the NCW. This dastardly act of trickery can be easily performed in the broad daylight at any time during the existence of marriage.

Where is the defense for the accused against willful entrapment by the woman and her relatives? Where would they go for justice?

Sections 107 to 120 of IPC extensively deal with the abetment of a crime and punishment for the same. In almost all scenarios discussed there, abetment of crime attracts almost equivalent punishment as the crime itself. Not so, under the amendments proposed by NCW – abetment is NOT a crime if the D word is involved.


Any casual observer can quickly understand that these amendments are proposed neither to prevent the practice of dowry nor to prevent harassment of women. These provisions are envisaged as nothing more than tools of extortion in the hands of women and her family.
Once we understand the draconian and diabolical nature of these amendments, the next thought that is raised in our minds is – 

How prevalent the dowry practice must be for the NCW to make such extremist recommendations!
The following are unanswered questions; NCW may find it prudent to attempt answering, before pushing such perversions as the proposed amendments on the unguarded population of our namesake democracy.

 

 

  • How prevalent is the problem of dowry practice now as compared to 1961 when the original act was passed?
  • Has NCW conducted any scholarly research studies to document the extent and prevalence of the Dowry practice by geographic, socio-economic, or education or any other dimensions?
  • Is it true the modern, educated, young city woman would run after a dowry seeker seeking a marriage with him?
  • Is anyone forcing marriages and dowries on unwilling women and their families?
  • What is the rationale of NCW in actively promoting entrapment and extortion under the guise of amendments?
  • What is NCW’s justification for recommending imprisonment terms of seven to ten years for dowry allegations (see no proof is required to convict)?

 Wake up India from your deep slumber before the anti-social elements from the tax payer funded entities like NCW, destroy any semblance of sanity and tranquility in our society in the name of women protection laws!

Is it a simple man versus woman equation? When you destroy either one, don’t many other men, women and children suffer?

We need equity and a sense of proportion in our legislation to prevent misuse of the law and to provide justice to genuine victims. We need a whole lot of people awareness and participation to solve any complex social issues such as dowry practice. Idiotic laws and amendments with ample scope for misuse would only encourage otherwise reasonable people to resort to such misuse and thereby spread further chaos in the society.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Abetment of a Crime is not a Crime – NCW”

  1. Jinesh Zaveri Says:

    Excellent Arguements. Very Impressive.

    Nice to see new articles on various other blogs.

    Pls Accept my sincere request to keep new qualitative articles coming.

    Cheers!!!!

  2. Suraj Yadav Says:

    The article clearly highlights the fact that these laws are meant to be misused . Very well written .
    Do keep up the good work .

  3. Ram Balak Says:

    exellent argument and very nicely written. NCW jawab dou?

    Why are you earning money on the name of dowry law?

    Goverment must abolish NCW with immediate effect. We men pay more than 90% of the taxes and our amount is used by male-hater NCW to make our children fatherless.

    NCW= National commission for Wives.

  4. rahul suri Says:

    Good inputs,

    Please let us know if there is any existing provision that within 1 year of marriage no dowry complaint can be lodged , i see many marriages ending withing 1 year on account of false dowry complaints then we can refer any such provision to get relief. your early response would be highly grateful

  5. sif id Says:

    the conversation between A-B was just looks like it was preplaned and it also happen to me my wife having some Infertility Issue , thumb suker, and having 99% symptoms of OCD and BPD , when i file divorce case she takes all parents under the 498A threat and NCW for saving my parents from any Problem i am continue to stay with hwer from last 6 yr and taking her acts , you can take my blog for my daily routins or say tourture at 360.yahoo.com/sif_id

  6. I.S. Pramod Chandra Says:

    hi,

    I saw somebody enquiring about the proposed Amendments to the D.P. Act. But let me clarify that Sec. 7 of the D.P. Act reads as follows :-

    7 Cognizance of offences
    [. .-
    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,-
    (a) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act;
    (b) no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon-
    (i) its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or
    (ii) a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recognized welfare institution or organisation;

    (c) it shall be lawful for a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act on any person convicted of any offence under this Act.

    (2) Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.]
    b[b] Inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act (43 of 1986), S. 6 (19-1 1-86). [(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.]

    So, there is no stipulation of 1 year or 6 months time, whether it is from the date of marriage or offence as the case may be, in the Principal Act. However, some of the States (Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) have amended the said provision fixing the limit of 1 year from the date of marriage (Haryana & H.P.) and 1 year from the date of offence (in the case of Punjab).

    However, please note that the Sec. 7(2) of the principal Act states that Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of Cr.P.C. shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act..

    Chapter XXXVI refers to ‘Limitations for taking cognizance of Certain offences’. In particular, Sec. 468 deals with such limitations. The Section reads as follows :-

    468 Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation
    . .-
    (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
    (2) The period of limitation shall be,-
    (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
    (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
    (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

    So, I view of Sec. 7(2), there is no limitation for filing the complaint or its taking cognizance by the Court excepting the applicability of the Law in the States above referred… We, in Karnataka, have adopted the Section in toto and there is no limitation as such..

    Hope this clarifies the quierry of the people on this subject..

    Regards,

    Pramod, Advocate, Bangalore.

  7. I.S. Pramod Chandra Says:

    In Response to Suri’s Comments written above, I would like to clarify that (in addition to what I have already posted in my earlier comment), the period of is the outer limit and not the inner limit whereever the time is formulated… i.e., to say that beyond the period of 1 year from the date of marriage or offence, no Court shall take cognizance…

    Regards,

    Pramod, Advocate, Bangalore.

  8. bharati Says:

    Can you give a citation where the courts refused to take cognisance on that ground

  9. bharati Says:

    Pramod advocate.
    I see no evidence in bangalore having studied that due process is followed . but you are free to approach the bangalore branch of SIF and prove that it is being done.

  10. Bhaskar Says:

    hi Praamod Chandra Sir,

    Just wanted to check, whether under Hindu law, can i apply for divorce as i have not completed 1 year of marriage, am suspecting/anticipating my wife is going to file a false dowry case. Please help me.

  11. Prassoon Suryadas Says:

    By saying “Giving dowry is not a crime” NCW is promoting dowry and pushing abala naris into *deep trouble*.

    It is pretty clear that NCW is not bothered about women or men but they are against family system. The only item in their agenda is to destory the concept of family and their by establish sexual anarchy.

  12. Somnath Says:

    Many of my American girl friends have said I like this biased law in India, I want to marry an Indian and I can easily blackmail him. They also say we dont like the equal justice in America at all. Here women can be punished for false cases.

  13. raj Says:

    Dear all:

    Sincere thanks to all taking good effort in this matter.

    The DOWRY is an action not different from BRIBE. If we compare both in all aspect it makes a tie.

    DOWRY = given by one party to get a work done from other party = BRIBE

    Now if giving BRIBE is crime irrespect of agreived’s complaint or not then why should the aggeived should get excemption in the matter of DOWRY. The attitude of ” I will give dowry to get the work done but when things go bad I use the crime I committed in my favor”. Does it prove that the law is blind!

  14. Very URGeNT: Please Help « My take on activism by MRI Says:

    […] PDRTJS_settings_549264_post_4091 = { "id" : "549264", "unique_id" : "wp-post-4091", "title" : "Very+URGeNT%3A+Please+Help", "item_id" : "_post_4091", "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Fvirtuallogs.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2F10%2Fvery-urgent-please-help%2F" } https://feministmedia.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/abetment-of-a-crime-is-not-a-crime-ncw/ […]

  15. Kris Says:

    Dowry problem is an invention of evil feminists to enlist the government in the extortion scheme. Dowry problem doesnt exist in our society. No one is putting a gun to someone’s head and demanding dowry. Marriages in our society are voluntary affairs. If one family makes an unreasonable demands in whatever form, the other family simply needs to walk away from that alliance. If during the subsistence of marriage, there is any violence, that is considered Domestic Violence. These radical bitches and the shameless government have devised a clever propaganda in the form of the D word to usurp power and unleash legal terrorism. Until, the society fully wakes up to the truth of the Dowry myth, these radical elements will continue their reign of terror and further sully the reputation of our ancient and stable society. Shame on them and shame on all who believe in the Dowry Myth!!!

  16. Kimar Says:

    NCW can rename as DIF – Destroy Indian Family…

    Giving dowry is not a crime, where as asking dowry is a crime. This clearly again stating that Indian law is totally biased.

    NCW making law to destroy the family and save only the wives. To save 25% of Indian, they are destroying 75% Indians. Dont forget most of the Tax payers are Male and husband and you are getting salary from their Tax pay.

    Currently 98% of dowry (IPC 498a) cases are false cases. This is very big weapen given to wife to destroy the husband family without any reason. They are having DV, CRPC 125, Child custody to drink the money(blood) of husband. Calling wife name is also crime as per NCW.

    Well done NCW, if you are making this kind of law once day India will become most misusable law by wife and the husband death will increase much more. You cant make any law after that because only ladies will be there in India.

    Great India, Great Indian law and Great NCW….. Jai hind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: