Talk:Indian Penal Code/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sections refering to cruelty

Personally, I think the sections refering to cruelty should be moved to their own page, but am leaving it there, since it maybe a emotional issue.--IMpbt 15:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it is indeed emotional

Section 498A is just one section IPC (Indian Penal Code).... There is only one section within IPC in Wiki, is due to the fact that there is no other discussion going on for other sections.

Anybody can add other sections or entire IPC, if they find it worth while.

So.. please do not move it to a different page..498A is part of Indian Penal Code.

forgot about the emotional part... please refer to "Misuse of 498A" section within (it is ofcourse diff wiki page).

-498aVictim Aug 20 2005

Government Sponsored Legal Terrorism - IPC 498A

You can Control TERRORISM; But you cann`t control or STOP Government Sponsored Legal Terrorism IPC - 498A.

Government can make LAW to STOP terrorism, and punish Terrorist and misusers; But who will punish Government bodies who make laws like IPC 498A, which harass more innocent than save.Which send more old aged parents to jail falsely, Even Pregnent sisters of man who is victim of ipc 498a along with breast fed children.

Supreme Court of India called, misusing 498a is a legal terrorism; still no one ready to scrap this Notorious Law nor amend it; Even they know there are more innocents are victimised.

Government knows there is mass scale of misuse; but they do not punish misuser; Law think all wives are Victims of Domestic violence.

When there is so much support for this misuse; and government blindly watch this and do nothing;

then this is Government Sponsored Terrorism than what Else. Indian Penal code 498A Misuse

This is not the forum for this discussion. Please take it up with your MP (I don't know that India calls its MPs MPs but I'll run with that anyway), or start a protest group in your State. Wikipedia is not your, or my, soapbox (I forgot what the article name of that is, I'm sure you can look it up in the search function). Ellenor2000 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

POV

I don't know what "Specialty" is referred to but that whole segment sounds like cheerleading in favour of the Penal Code without any mention of drawbacks or any such tempering language. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that will be covered in a different segment. As far as the speciality of the IPC is concerned, it is undoubtedly the best law of India so far. Since no law is perfect even IPC has certain drawbacks that will be analysed in due course of time. Please keep patience and let the page develop in a holistic manner.

Praveen Dalal 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

This article definately needs improvement; the drafting of the code has been attended to in an haphazard manner; also the write up is not very informative. The quoted reference is also no an site run by the government or creditable source. Definitely needs a re write in encyclopedia style as it is written like a piece of literature --Aileronajay 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

threatning me..that he will lodge false FIR against me...

the matter was i was washing my vechicle on the washing point provided by builder & society. this person comes violently to me tryed to snatch the pipe from me.he was trying to force me that i should raise hand on him so that he could complain against me.as i didnt do so & now he is trying to harash me . so what should i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.47.139 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to ask for legal advice. It is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts only.

Needs either Major Cleanup or Deletion

This article has enormous potential for being encyclopedic yet is very poorly written (by this I do not refer to poor grammar but rather to poor "encyclopedic style") and it is missing many citations. Frankly at this stage it is litte better than a stub article. As already noted on this talk page there is a lot of bias without balance in the text. I would suggest this could be a fantastic article if it were treated as an encyclopedic entry should be. If not it should be deleted for lack of Verifiability and Reliable Sources. 66.102.204.126 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)