"so even genuine cases are taken as false/fraudulent cases" You said so.Is not it?
What is the source of this information?
@ Mugundhan & @ Aishwarya,
498a & Statistics
Something that I have respected unconvincingly is "Statistics". I have respected because if totally used in some limits, it is very useful and if used in length but in isolation then it can be totally misleading. But the question is where do we draw a line?
For example, Two batsmen with a strike rate of 200%, sounds genius but we find that both though share the same strike rate one achieved the same by virtue of 50 runs in 25 deliveries and the other scored 2 runs of 1 ball. Funny isn’t it?
Similarly, we have leaders who have successfully established themselves as icons be it as a chief of a Gender Lobby. Or who brands a baba as a non vegetarian or someone who has shut the doors to the dancing ‘women’ in bars. They have repeatedly expressed their concern over mandatory registering complaint of the daughter-in-law in the police station every time if-she-feels-harassed.
My question to these people is “Is there any agenda behind this?” and I get an answer “Yes that is Statistics”, while some people would call it as scam or racket I would discuss on the blunder that has been committed.
1) there cannot be such laws where the sections are against the daughter-in-law. But they also agree that the misuse of the over protecting laws has been in abundance. They are not documented as there are no “Specific” sections to do so.
2) They also say that everytime a daughter-in-law complains, the cognizance has to be taken (they actually mean irrespective of the authenticity of the complaint).
Now here comes The Catch: This only means that we are ‘merely’ adding on to the statistics which will project a pathetic and scary one sided picture. Conversely, now we do not have a special section that is enforced on the sides of the daughters in law, and the stringency is almost absent as I encounter many pre 498a victims complaining that the police refused to take the NC and after easily applicable 498a where would they go? Now while taking a glance at the end of year we are left with ready reckoner on the section 498a front and related sections but when it comes to the sections applied on the daughters in law which is rare as there are no compulsions, well, that is where those cases are lost among the regular criminal cases and the distorted result shows that the DV and Dowry cases are on rise and once again they do not get a separate identity of criminals.
But now what do we need to do? File a PIL, sounds good but it needs each ones contribution. Why? Because PIL is about PUBLIC INTEREST and just 1 or 2 do not make PUBLIC, it requires Junta technically "aam adamis". Then only the judiciary has business to mind and hence we need to build our own real statistics and fight against the pseudo projections with one sided compulsions that makes a drunkard of an institution that uses statistics like a pole to balance itself when fully drunk.