How to identify rapists

Currently there is intense media focus on an alledged rape of a women in Delhi (the capital of India). Whenever such a media publicized rape event happens, there is a demand to hang the rapists to death. It is portrayed as if rapists are from some other planets. Both male and females come out in large number on streets, and create intense drama. All this, under the garb of "justice". They demand to put terror in the heart of the rapists. The media portrays as if the whole world is against the rapists. All news TV channels were showing interviews of the protestors. The language of many of the protestors was foul and uncivilized to say the least. And these people talk of justice! One common demand is, "rape the female family members of the rapists. Then they will understand." Such demand is also made against people, who call for an unbiased trial for the accused. This is not at all opposed fervently by the protestors. The colors of the so-called ideologues and the intellectuals also stand exposed, as they shamelessly defend the immoral, violent and undemocratic actions of the protestors.
The alledged rapists, are in fact "alledged" rapists. Whether a rape happened, or not, is yet to be proved in a court of law. Indian law prohibits publishing the documents related to the rape, so that the accused don't get a fair trial. But the protestors, by their very mindset, are clearly rapists. Hence if one needs to kill/finish off the rapists, it is quite easy. Target the people, who blindly protest rape of a female. The protestors(female and male) are the real rapists. These are the real scum of the society.  In a country where a dreaded terrorist like Kasab, who was not even an Indian citizen, gets a fair trial. But alleged rapists are demanded to be lynched without any trial. Such is the pathetic state of the Indian society.

Below is a behind the scenes video clip from a TV show, showing the behavior of such rapists. Such a scenario is very common in India.

Description - A  women slaps a  man, he slaps her back. After seeing this, "protectors" rush in towards the man aggressively as if he has committed a heinous crime. They start mercilessly beating the man, hurling the choicest abuses at him. "Lifting a hand on women, you m******" "Send your sister, you *****"
Protection of women always leads to terrible violence

Delhi Rape was FAKE ?

A Delhi Police constable has died while he was on duty, trying to control the unruly mob gathered to protest the alledged rape in Delhi.

 News channels are bringing stooges to prove hard that the police constable died of totally natural causes. They are making a show of how factual they are. The post mortem report is being analyzed, or more aptly twisted. Check how they have highlighted "no confirmation"
 They are creating new witnesses who are trying to prove their "theory of natural death". There was one shameless women, who was proudly saying he died of natural causes. But, no one calls her a w*ore. But people want to cut private parts of those who are demanding a fair trial for the accused. This underlines the fact of males being a disposable entity. Why cry over the death of a Police Person, more so of a Man.

Why not apply the same parameters to the alleged Delhi Rape case itself, and check if it withstands the same tests.
- Did anyone saw the medical report of the rape case ? Why not publish the report ?
- If rape is so severe then murder, why didn't either of the boy or girl waved to any of the police check-post which passed by. The bus passed through three such barricades.
- All the news reports are about the victim girl's stomach injuries. Which points to only physical violence.
- The victim has admitted that the accused had threatened her that they would throw her out of the moving bus. And everyone thought she wanted to get out of the bus. "....narrated to the SDM that all the while they kept threatening her that they would throw her out of the moving bus. Initially, the accused tried to throw out her friend, too, but failed as he put up a fight."
- Since news channels cannot show porn legally, they try to show as much coverage and discussion of alleged rape cases to satisfy their viewers urge. Hence they over hype such issues. In most cases, they create issue out of nothing. They will do anything to get more viewership.
- The rape incidence was created by Congress to over-shadow Modi's re-election. If the delhi Rape case hadn't happened, it would have been all Modi on all news channels.
- The rape incidence was created by Congress so that people's attention will get diverted from their scams.
- The rape incidence is being hyped by people who are nobodies to get some mileage, and eke out a living, so that govt nominates them on some commission, or ask them to prepare a useless report. These people are called p**mps.

Remember "Truth is stranger then fiction"

Crime is crime. Laws, investigating agencies and judiciary shouldn't be gender biased.

Protection of women always leads to terrible violence

A popular depiction in mainstream hindi movies in India. To protect one female, scores of men are killed by the hero. The hero probably forgets the famous quote "An eye for an eye, will leave everyone blind"
Most riots and bloodshed happen due to this protectionist mindset of males. One of the most common reason for bloodshed in riots/conflicts is that (rumors of) "women" have been raped/killed. Since it is quite easy to incite men, when they hear that women have been raped/killed, for centuries this trick has been used to create bloodshed. When such rumors are spread, Men tend to join such armed conflicts, to "protect honor of women". And protection of honor of women means, killing men, whom they suspect, could bring dishonor to their women folks. Facts are ignored, and violence happens on the basis of (deliberately planted) rumors and fake perceptions. And when emotions overtake men, rational thinking is totally destroyed.
Once on TV, there was a discussion about eve-teasing. Recently in an eve-teasing incident, a young man was killed, while supposedly trying to protect a girl. Of the deaths involved in eve-teasing, all were men. The discussion was focused entirely on protecting females. Nothing about protecting Men. Since it is a given that males are disposable entities. Even in the over-hyped Delhi rape case, did anyone care for the young man who was injured ?  Very few. All news was about the female. Hence even if males try to be hero, no one is going to take notice of them. So why act on impulse and false pride? Even the protests meant to protect women, lead to more violence. Thus proving the point. In fact, we will never know, what happened in the alleged Delhi rape case. The truth will never come out. There is a possibility that there was only physical violence, that too probably instigated by the young man, trying to impress the girl. He was trying to be a super-hero, but got a rude shock of reality.

History is filled with countless such examples of terrible violence, under the false garb of protection of women. Men should stop being protectors of women and think about protecting themselves first. All of this violence and senseless bloodshed can be avoided, if Men stop acting on the protector impulse. If civilization has to progress, Men need to shed this orthodox mindset of pseudo protection of women. Else there is little difference between animals and Men. Men need to protect themselves first. Women are much stronger then most men realize. Even women organizations would agree to that. Hence they want more responsibilities for women, I hope my guess about responsibilities is correct :-)

Even if Indian husband is dying, and jobless, he has to pay money to wife

Normally Indian courts treat husbands like free ATM machines. Even if the husband is jobless, courts routinely tell husbands to pay money to wife. The directive of courts is "Beg, Borrow, or Steal" (BBS), but pay your wife. The courts are very ruthless in this regard.
Recently  an HIV positive gentleman, who is jobless, was ordered to pay maintenance to his wife. Even though the gentleman had produced diagnostic reports, the courts didn't budged from their BBS motto. The gentleman is incurring a monthly expense of Rs.3900. And still he was ordered to pay Rs. 5000 per month to his wife.
Please don't ask sensible questions like, in such moments, the court is expected to show a humane approach to the husband. The Indian court expect that till a husband is alive, he has to support his wife, by ANY means. The husband had subjected himself to examination. But the courts refused to do that, and passed a merciless order, directing him to pay money. No mercy, for husbands, even if they are on their deathbed.

Below is the court order

Suryakant Tularam Tiwari...Petitioner
Poonam Suryakant Tiwari...Respondent
Mr. Pradip Chavan h/f. Pradip Chavan & Associates for the Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Bali a/w. Mrs. Shail Chaudhary i/b. B.K. Bali Associates for
the Respondent
                 DATED  : 14 TH  DECEMBER, 2012
P.C. :
1. The Petitioner husband has challenged the order of
maintenance of Rs.5000/­ p.m reviewed to be the maintenance
order of Rs.8000/­p.m to be granted to the Respondent wife.
The Petitioner has not paid any maintenance. He has been in
arrears. He claimed that his employment was terminated
because he was so ill that he could not stand.  He has produced
various certificates and pathological reports. The Pathological
reports shows that he has HIV+ status, arthritis and TB
susceptibility. The Petitioner is suffering from all diseases.
However, that suspect would have to be seen at the trial when
the Petitioner submits himself to cross examination and seeks to
prove various illness certificates.
2. The Petitioner claims that he spends Rs.3900/­ p.m for his
HIV treatment.  That also would have to be separately proved.
Mere producing of Petitioner's bills do not show that they refer
to the Petitioner or that the monies are paid by the Petitioner.
The prescriptions for these medicines would also have to be
3. The Petitioner is an Engineer.  He was working and earning
a salary of Rs.19,000/­. That has been discontinued being his
termination. He claims to have got another job which is also
terminated.  His present job is also stated to be terminated.
4. The Petitioner has completely thrown his hands up without
any positive evidence.
5. Pending the Petition the interim maintenance would have
to be paid. No case for any alteration or modification of the
impugned order is made out.
6. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Why people like Justice Katju are not idiots !

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In India, judges have tremendous power and immunity. Anyone can openly express their critical views to some extent, on politicians, government officials, and people in power. Not on judges though. If anyone dares to question the judges, it is regarded as contempt of court. So much so that even politicians are scared to pass any remark on judges. Because of this unlimited power, the judges think, they can speak any nonsense, and people will tamely listen. One of the reasons that judges enjoy such wide powers is because the British created the current Judicial system in India. British deliberately created a powerful servile class to help them sustain their power in India. Judiciary helped British by doing grave injustice on Indian Men, and sentencing the freedom fighters to death and long term imprisonment. Markendey Katju, is a retired Supreme Court Judge. He is quite famous, for making controversial statements, and later on retracting them saying, I meant something else. Recently he was in the news for saying "90% of of Indians are fools". To justify his statements, unfortunately for him, he has taken shelter in all the wrong arguments. On one hand, he tries to show he is anti-British, but his writings reeks of a Brit-sycophant.

He has quoted that India had such a glorious past - pre-British era. Majority of the "dignified" Supreme Court and High Court judges, always take pride in referring to British Laws, quotes and texts. This smells heavily of colonial era-sycophancy. Aren't there Indian texts to refer to ? Truth is the institution of Judiciary in India, is still in the colonial era mindset. They think once they have donned the black coat, they are above the idiotic natives.

It was people like Justice Katju, who said that the British are a God-Send, and who refused to fought against the British. Because of them it took more then 100 years to throw the British out of India. Time has came, that we throw such sycophants out of India.

The ills of Indian society he has criticized are the ones, which British had deliberately planted to show how Indians are uncivilized people. One of the biggest such corruption of history was the Aryan invasion theory. This was then mixed with various other malicious propaganda. Sati, female infanticide, ill-treatment of women, and so forth. This created a feeling of guilt amongst so-called British educated Indian Men. Unfortunately these Men with guilt, were mostly from the elite class. This same guilt is present today, and people like Amir Khan are trying hard to sustain that guilt. If anyone needs to feel guilty it is the shameless judiciary in India, who needs to unconditionally apologize to the entire nation for murdering so  many freedom fighters. This same judiciary continues to torture Men, even today. He has quoted dowry deaths as being so common. It is out in the open that most of the dowry death cases are false. Laws like IPC 498A meant to curb dowry death menace, have created an extortion racket in courts. Helpless Indian Men are routinely harassed, humiliated, looted and tortured in Indian courts.  Per Justice Katju these Men fighting for justice are idiots. If they were clever they should have committed suicide, like the 62,000+ Men who do so every year. Since Men are really fools if they expect justice from Indian courts.

If Indian society has to progress, it needs to kick out sycophants like Markendey Katju.

Crime Shows/Serials on TV - Feminazi factory at work

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Propaganda Minister, under Adolf Hitler)

Sony TV broadcasts a serial called as Dastak/Crime Patrol. Like OK, TV Channel broadcasts a crime show called "Savdhaan Indian". Nowadays lot of TV channels are telecasting similar crime serials/shows. They supposedly show real life cases. However with a twist. They heavily dramatize the actual event.
When writers are out of ideas, they turn to the tried and tested cheap formula of showing women as victim. In majority of the episodes, crimes involving women are shown. Women are always projected as abla naari's(helpless victims). These serials try hard to justify the crimes done by females. Even if a women commits a crime, they try hard to prove that she was a victim of circumstances. They show only one angle/perspective of the event, and that too in a dramatized fashion. This leads to the general public believing that it is mostly women who are victims. Real fact is, they only broadcast crimes, where women are involved. Why is it then, it is men, who are mostly killed everyday? In real life, more then 75% of murder victims are always Men.(Refer NCRB data) But Men don't get much sympathy. Worse, if a Man is killed by a women, she can always use the abla-naari trump card. And TV shows are too eager to twist the facts, and project how the helpless women was driven to commit murder. Or abort her child, and more such nonsense.

Feminists are too eager to defend such TV shows by saying, that the TV show producers, have a right to bread and butter. Sure, yes, but not by spreading the disease of male-hatred in society. Due to the diseased propaganda spread by such TV shows, the already existing erroneous notion of majority of the ignorant Indian population that majority of the crimes are committed against women, gets re-enforced. And these ignorant masses believe that they know the facts.
Since protection of women is a natural tendency of Men, Men are huge fans of such TV shows. They want to exhibit their protectionist behavior. One way they do that, is help spreading such male-hatred, in order to show how much they sympathize and care for women. (Many Indians think that by watching TV shows, they are contributing generously to some noble social cause). When such people are shown statistics, they half-heartedly agree that "yes, crimes do happen against Men," but would add, "majority of the victims are women" !!

Civilization implies humans curb their primitive instincts. In this case, the men who support criminal women, are fostering their primitive instincts. Protect females to spread their seed. Such men should be ashamed of being so un-civilized. Ironically majority of such protectionist men are proud of this uncivilized behavior of theirs. Majority of Indian men like to be protectors of women. They like to help the "damsel in distress". Towards what end ?

Amir Khan and the brain-dead Indian Male

Amir Khan and the likes, encash on the simple philosphy, that when males see a feminine form, the logical part of their brain stops working.
One person was telling how, in KBC, a women who had suffered an acid attack, had requested the court to allow her to commit suicide. With due respect to all women, many Indian males get carried away by such stupid stories. When a person wants to commit suicide, he/she doesn't goes on TV, and tells the whole world. "Hey  Guys, do you know what, I want to commit suicide, can you please allow me to die". Of course, a person, with the intent of suicide won't ever do such a thing. But for Indian males, who CANNOT think objectively, when a female is involved, things are difficult to understand.

Many Indian males commit suicide every day. One every six minute. That rate is double that of women. While women victims get sympathy, Male victims face ridicule. Does anyone care for them ? Apart from a few Men's Right's Activist no one. Only when men themselves get screwed up miserably, do they realize the truth.  Even then many men are reluctant to accept the truth. Many want to dis-believe that misandry(male-hatred) exists.They will put absolute junk arguments to negate the fact, that misandry exists.

If you are a Men's Rights Activist (MRA's), you need to pat your back. You are right on the road to Self-Realization. It is your good karma, that led you to this realization.

Do MRA's need to be worried about the vast majority of people, who get carried away by the orthodox view, that women are harassed, and men are the culprit. That we live in a male dominated society, and more such bull-crap? Absolutely NO. In any society, the ones who understand the truth are always few in numbers. That is the way, it is destined. Remember the pyramid. Only very few are at the top. All major changes in the history of mankind, have been triggered by only a small set of people. The vast majority don't care much for Men. It is MRA's karma, to spread awareness. Hence MRA's don't need to get disappointed that a vast majority don't realize the misandry that exists in out everyday life.

Future generations of these male-haters will be ashamed of how senseless their grandpa's/granny's were !!!

A Single Arrest is a Tragedy; a Million Arrests is a Statistic

The below quote is attributed to Joseph Stalin.
"A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic"
The Supreme Court of India, has modified it to
"A Single Arrest is a Tragedy; a Million Arrests is a Statistic"

Recently there was a furore over the arrests of two girls over the comments they made on facebook. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Supreme Court(SC) of India, and the SC was also quick to admit it. SC seemed very much distressed that two girls got arrested. So much so that SC has taken this issue on an urgent basis, and wants to examine the constitutional validity of section 66 A of the IT Act.
Anyone not very closely following the SC would feel that SC is the lone torch bearer of justice in this country. The report states "Also, a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir said that it was considering to take suo motu cognisance of recent incidents and wondered why nobody had so far challenged the particular provision of the IT Act.". suo-motu means "on its own", i.e. court has taken cognizance even if there is no complainant. In a country, where there is a huge backlog of pending cases, the court  takes suo-motu cognizance only in exceptional cases. Such is the importance SC attaches to this case. This would make one think that SC has such high ideals. Well think again.

There is a provision in Indian Penal Code, which is 498A. This penal provision gives an Indian wife the power to lodge a criminal complaint against her husband, and in practise, any citizen of India, whom she wants to see behind bars. Only the verbal statement of the wife is necessary. No evidence is required. Even if the wife states any absurd facts, which are totally false, it doesn't matters. Due to this totally ridiculous law, more then a million men, and more then 500,000+ women (mostly elderly, i.e. mothers of the husbands, and their sisters) have been arrested due to this draconian law. More then 98% of these cases result in acquittal. If proper legal process is followed the acquittal rate is 100%. Against this gross injustice, Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, had filed, a Writ Petition in SC. W.P. 141 of 2005. The gentlemen had called in the constitutional validity of this horrible section. It was heard by the bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and H.K.Sema.  The court agreed to the misuse, and even termed it as legal terrorism. But in their judgement they refused to term it as unconstitutional. Some excerpts from this judgement. [The judgement is reproduced entirely at the end of this post.]
"It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provisions of law does not per se invalidate a legislation."
"we find no substance in the plea that Section 498A has no legal or constitutional foundation." 
"We do not find any substance in this plea. If the petitioner wants to prove his innocence, he can do so in the trial, if held."

From the statement "It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provisions of law does not per se invalidate a legislation." The double standards of SC are exposed. In the current 66A case, from just a handful of cases, SC itself wants to examine the constitutional validity of the section. While in case of 498A, even when millions have been arrested, humiliated and tortured, the SC callously retorted to the above defense.
In countless more cases, even when it was proved beyond doubt that the wife had filed a false case, this very same SC never took any sort of action, against the culprit wife. And now just over a couple of arrests, the SC has taken suo-motu cognizance of same.

Why this pro-activeness and contradictory stand from SC ? Why so sensitive on two arrests, and why so insensitive to the arrests of millions of innocent ? SC would never answer these questions. Because judges are a species who have descended from heaven, and are not answerable to anyone. They are above the ordinary citizen of this country. If anyone raises any questions on any judge or their judgement, that itself is a crime.

CASE NO.: 141 of 2005 Writ Petition (civil)
PETITIONER: Sushil Kumar Sharma
RESPONDENT: Union of India and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/2005
BENCH: Arijit Pasayat & H.K. Sema
JUDGMENT: Arijit Pasayat, J.

By this petition purported to have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’) prayer is to declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations.
Further prayer is made that whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations. This according to the petitioner, would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Several instances have been highlighted to show as to how commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC has been made with oblige motive and with a view to harass the husband, in-laws and relatives.
According to the petitioner there is no prosecution in these cases but persecution. Reliance was also placed on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court wherein concern was shown about the increase in number of false and frivolous allegations made. It was pointed out that accusers are more at fault than the accused. Persons try to take undue advantage of the sympathies exhibited by the courts in matters relating to alleged dowry torture.

Section 498A appears in Chapter XXA of IPC.
Substantive Sections 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. Section 498A IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage.

Section 498 reads as follows:
"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section ‘cruelty’ means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

Section 113-B reads as follows:-
"113-B: Presumption as to dowry death-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in Section have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the explanation for the purpose of Section 498A. It is to be noted that Sections 304-B and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These
provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of ‘cruelty’. In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of ‘cruelty’. But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of ‘cruelty’ or ‘harassment’ is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which ‘cruelty’ by itself amounts to an offence.

The object for which Section 498A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examines the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, which constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menance of dowry death and cruelty.
One other provision which is relevant to be noted is Section 306 IPC. The basic difference between the two Section i.e. Section 306 and Section 498A is that of intention. Under the latter. cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the women concerned to commit suicide, while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended. It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provisions of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. It must be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that administrative and application of a particular law would be done "not with an evil eye  and unequal hand" (see A Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatachalam Potti, Authorised Official and Income-Tax officer and Anr., AIR (1956) SC 246.
In Budhan Choudhry and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1955) SC 191 a contention was raised that a provision of law may not be discriminatory but it may land itself to abuse bringing about discrimination between the persons similarly situated. This court repelled the contention holding that on the possibility of abuse of a provision by the authority, the legislation may not be held arbitrary or discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

From the decided cases in India as well as in United States of America, the principle appears to be well settled that if a statutory provision is otherwise intra-vires, constitutional and valid, mere possibility of abuse of power in a given case would not make it objectionable, ultra-vires or unconstitutional. In such cases, "action" and not the "section" may be vulnerable. If it is so, the court by upholding the provision of law, may still set aside the action; order or decision and grant appropriate relief of the person aggrieved.
In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 5 SCC 536, a Bench of 9 Judges observed that mere possibility of abuse of a provision by those in charge of administering it cannot be a ground for holding a provision procedurally or substantively unreasonable. In Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, [1962] 3 SCR 786 this Court observed: "The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity." It was said in State of Rajasthan v. Union
of India, [1977] 3 SCC 592 "it must be remembered that merely because power may sometimes be abused, it is no ground for denying the existence of power. The wisdom of man has not yet been able to conceive of a Government with power sufficient to answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of mischief." (Also see: Commissioner, H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Meth, [1954] 1005. As observed in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat, [2004] 6 SCC 672, Unique Butle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors., [2003] 2 SCC 455 and Padma Sundara Rago (dead) and Ors. v. State, [2002] 3 SCC 533. while interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of Law is misused and subjected to the abuse of the process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. The judgment of the Delhi High Court on which reliance was made was rendered in the case of Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors. In that case while holding that the allegations regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC were not made out. Certain observations in general terms were made about the need for legislative changes. The
complaint had moved this Court against the judgment on merits in SLP (Crl).....of 2003 entitled Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors. By order dated 28.11.2003 this Court observed as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. We do not see any merit in the challenge made to the order of the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 462 of 2002 on the facts of the case. the special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. At the same time, we express our disapproval of some of the generalized views expressed in paragraphs 23 to 32 of the judgment of the High Court by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge ought to have seen that such observations, though may be appropriate for seminars or workshops, should have been avoided being incorporated as part of a court judgment. Some of the views also touch upon Legislative measures and wisdom of legislative policy in substance, which according to the learned Judge need to be taken into account. There was no scope for considering all such matters in the case which was before the learned Judge. It is therefore, appropriate that such generalized observations or views should meticulously avoided by Courts in the judgments."
Above being the position we find no substance in the plea that Section 498A has no legal or constitutional foundation. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry meance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins’ weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the  investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It  should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.
Prayer has been made to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the ‘CBI’) in certain matters where the petitioner is arrayed as an accused. We do not find any substance in this plea. If the petitioner wants to prove his innocence, he can do so in the trial, if held.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.