“9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand & Anr. , this Court observed t h at it is a matter of commo n knowledge that in matrimonia l disputes exaggerated version s of the incident are reflected i n a large number of complaint s and the tendency of over impli c ation is also reflected in a larg e number of cases. The criminal t r ials lead to immense suffering s f or all concerned. Even ultimat e acquittal in the trial may als o not be able to wipe out th e deep scars of sufferings o f ignominy, it was further held t h erein. We have no hesitation t o hold that the said observation o f this Court is in fact, soundin g of a caution, against non-disch a rge of the duty to see whethe r implication of a person who is n ot a close relative of the famil y of the husband is over imp l ication or whether allegatio n against any such person is an exaggerated version, i n matrimonial disputes of this n a ture. In this context, it is to b e noted that the term 'relative ' has not been defined in th e statute and, therefore, it mus t be assigned a meaning as i s commonly understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken t o include, father, mother, hus b and or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter o f any individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, i t
