The 498a case is filed by wife side is clearly for the harassment .

In one of my case my clients were living outside the state where the 498a case was lodged and considering today’s lockdown conditions the police is insisting that the accused with family should travel and join investigation.

Nothing is wrong in joining the investigation part but the issue with the police calls accused party unnecessary for obvious reasons.

Now here are the two things which you can do..

Apply for Anticipatory Bail

In such situations it is recommended to apply for the anticipatory bail so that possibility of arrest is negated if you are unable to join the investigation on a specified date.

It will protect you throughout the trial see my article .

Second option is:

Apply for Monitoring of investigation

Under 156(3) the magistrate has the power to montor the probe as delay in lodging fir infringes the right of accused as well as victims.

In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and
another, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 556 : 2004(1) Apex
Criminal 325 : 2003(6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been
observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere
with the investigation by the police. However, in our
opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a
proper investigation is being done by the police. If the
Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3)
Criminal Procedure Code is satisfied that proper
investigation has not been done, or is not being done by
the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, he
can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police
station to make a proper investigation and can further
monitor the same (though he should not himself
investigate).

30. It may be further mentioned that in view of
    Section 36 Criminal Procedure Code if a person is
    aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by
    the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such
    aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of
    Police or other police officer superior in rank to the
    officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior
    officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI
    v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal)
    574 : 2001(3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur v. S.P.
    Singh, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1117 etc. Also, the State
    Government is competent to direct the Inspector General,
    Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable
    offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar v.
    A.C. Saldanna (supra).”

These are the legal solutions to avoid harassment by police officials..

Nitish Banka

Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997