Handle matrimonial cases with care: SC tells lower courts

KANPUR: Granting a special leave petition in dowry and cruelty complaint case, the Supreme Court advised the members of bar to maintain the traditions of the profession and directed the subordinate courts to be careful in dealing with complaints and take pragmatic realities into considering while dealing with matrimonial cases.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari, in a criminal appeal styled as Preeti Gupta & others v/s state of Jharkhand & others which was decided recently, observed that the lawyers must ensure that exaggerated version of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints.Majority of complaints are filed either on their advice or with their consensus. The lawyers should treat every complaint under Section 498 A IPC as a basic human problem and make efforts to help the parties in arriving at an amicable settlement.
Advising the subordinate courts, Justice Bhandari said that the ultimate objective of court was to find the truth and punish the guilty. Finding the truth was a Herculean task in majority of complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his close relatives was common. The courts had to be careful in dealing with matrimonial cases.
Complainant Manisha Poddar was married to Kamal Poddar at Kanpur on December 10, 2006. Immediately after the marriage, the complainant left for Mumbai with her husband.
She visited Ranchi to attend a function on March 16, 2007. After staying there for a week, she returned to Mumbai on March 24, 2007. Three months later, she lodged a complaint before the chief judicial magistrate in Ranchi under Section 498A/406/323/120 B IPC with Section 3/4 Dowry Act against the relatives of her husband namely Pyare Lal Poddar (father-in-law), Sushila Devi (mother-in-law) Gaurav Poddar (brother-in-law) and Preeti Gupta (married sister-in-law). It was alleged that a luxury car was demanded by the accused named in complaint.
The judicial magistrate took cognizance and summoned the husband and others. The appellants Preeti Gupta and Gaurav Poddar were aggrieved by the summoning order.
Preeti claimed that she was a resident of Surat while Gaurav claimed that he he was a permanent resident of Goregaon in Maharashtra and they had never visited Mumbai in 2007. They were not the residents of Ranchi. If they were compelled to run to Ranchi repeatedly it would mean insurmountable harassment for them. In the FIR, there was no specific charge against them and they had been falsely implicated by the complainant.