_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Title - Preeti Gupta & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr
Case Citation - (2010) 7 SCC 667
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Parties Involved -
Appellant :
Preeti Gupta
Gaurav Poddar
Respondent :
State of Jharkhand
Manisha
Facts of the Case
Manisha (the Complainant) got married to Kamal Poddar at Kanpur on December 10, 2006. Manisha, who is respondent no. 2 in this appeal, left for Mumbai along with her husband Kamal Poddar who was working with the Tata Consultancy Services and was permanently residing in Mumbai. Manisha also became a part of Tata Consultancy Services in Mumbai on December 12, 2006. She visited Ranchi to participate in "Gangaur" (a Hindu festival that is celebrated widely in Northern India.) on March 16, 2007. Respondent no. 2 returned to Mumbai on March 24, 2007.
On July 8, 2007, Manisha Poddar filed a complaint before Chief Justice Magistrate, Ranchi under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Protection Act against all the family members of her husband. The complaint included the names of Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar (husband), Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarried brother-in-law), and Preeti Gupta/Agrawal (married sister-in-law).
When the complaint was transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate of Ranchi on October 10, 2008, he took cognizance and passed the summoning order of the appellants. The High Court of Ranchi upheld the summoning order, refusing to use its inherent powers. Aggrieved by this impugned judgment, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Issues of the Case
Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case?
Whether the order to summon the appellants was valid?
Appellant's Arguments
The appellants contended that no specific allegation was present in the complaint against them. Manisha complained that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused, but it appears that all the alleged incidents took place either in Kanpur or Mumbai. However, Preeti (Appellant no. 1) had been living permanently with her husband ar Navasari, Surat, for more than 7 years. She contented that she never visited Mumbai during the year 2007 and never stayed with Manisha or her husband.
Similarly, Gurav (Appellant no. 2) had been permanently residing at Goregoan in Maharashtra. The appellants never visited Ranchi during the period of these allegations, and the statements of prosecution witnesses also support the appellants in this aspect. The appellants argued that they had been falsely implicated in this case. They further contended that the complaint made by Manisha had no basis or foundation since no offense could be made out against them.
Respondent's Arguments
The Respondent argued that the appellants had come to Ranchi to celebrate the festival of Holi, where all the accused people had passed sarcastic wordings that affected the mental health of the respondent. Respondent no. 2 firmly stated that the appellants, along with all the other accused people, were part of the harassment she was facing.
Judgment of the Case
The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that they have carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. They held that there were no specific allegations made against the appellants in the complaint, and none of the witnesses had alleged any role of the appellants in the harassment complaint.
The only basis to name the appellants was to harass and humiliate them. There was no evidence to prove that they were present in Ranchi or Mumbai when the alleged harassment took place.
The Apex Court stated that the courts are receiving a large number of cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as,
Section 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 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.
This section gives protection to all the women who are harassed by their family members. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on the number of cases filed under this section, stated that,
"It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We came across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive."
The Court, in their ruling, stated that the ultimate motive is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. They further said, "the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations are also not uncommon." In such cases, where the relatives are named with the intention of humiliating them, their pain and suffering increase when they are forced to spend a few days in prison on the filing of the complaint.
In regards to the High Court not exercising the powers of Section 482, the Supreme Court held that the court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is always based on sound principles. Indeed, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, but the court's failure to use the power for the advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. The Hon'ble High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision where the facts are completely hazy, and no evidence has been collected to indicate anything factual.
In conclusion, the Apex Court stated that these criminal trials lead to immense suffering for all the concerned. Even when they are ultimately acquitted, the process of trial leaves deep scars of the suffering of humiliation. This ruling stated that it was high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make appropriate changes in the existing provisions.
Similar Cases
References
https://advocatespedia.com/PREETI_GUPTA_%26_ANR._v._STATE_OF_JHARKHAND_%26_ANR.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Are Laws Gender-Neutral In India? " by clicking the link below.
Comments