Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.In a significant move, the Supreme Court has observed that provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the anti-dowry law were being increasingly misused by plaintiffs. Taking cognisance of the fact that the law was being used as a weapon rather than a protective shield, the apex court directed state governments to instruct police not to automatically carry out arrests on the mere lodging of a complaint.There's no denying that Section 498 A was enacted with the commendable aim of cracking down on dowry deaths and cruelty against women in their matrimonial homes. However, by making provisions of the law too stringent, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction whereby the innocent can be victimised. Several women's rights groups have also acknowledged the Draconian nature of the stipulation that allows for automatic arrests, including of women, without bail. In many cases the accused include the plaintiff's women in-laws who are ailing or residing outside the country.Such charges are brought with the malaise intention of harassing the spouse's family. Add to this loose wording that takes cognisance even of mental abuse, and it is easy to see why Section 498 A is susceptible to misuse. Against this backdrop, it is welcome that the Supreme Court has directed the police to first satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making arrests in anti-dowry cases. Further, the magistrate too would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused. In this regard, there is an urgent need to review our approach towards gender crime laws in general.Q. As per the court now, before the detention of the accused-a)The Petitioner has to file a case before applying for a bail.b)The magistrate would have to record its satisfaction before authorising detention of the accused.c)The Police have to take permission from the District Court before making an arrest.d)The accused cannot be imprisoned without applying for bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.