Chattisgarh High Court
Sohil Agrawal vs Ganesh Agrawal on 6 April, 2022
1
FAM No. 9 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
(Arising out of order dated 19.3.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil MJC No.45/2019)
FAM No. 9 of 2021
Sohil Agrawal S/o Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal Aged About 30
Years R/o House No. A-1, Parijaat Extension Colony, Ring
Road No. 2, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
Ganesh Agrawal S/o Late N.M. Agrawal R/o Samta Colony,
Behind Amar Gas Godown, Magarpara, Police Station Civil
Lines, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant :- Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate
For Respondent :- Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Judgment on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
06.4.2022
1. Heard.
2. The instant appeal is against the order dated 19.3.2021
wherein an application filed by the appellant under Sections
FAM No. 9 of 2021
193, 195, 190 (1)(A) and 211 of the Cr.P.C. has been
dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Sohil
Agrawal was a respondent in a matrimonial dispute filed by
his wife Smt. Anjali Agrawal. It is contended that in such
matrimonial trial, evidence was adduced by respondent, as a
witness, wherein certain false allegations were made that he
had entered into quarrel with one Sunil Rajgir, as such the
husband in connivance and being hand in glove with Sunil
Rajgir has lodged the prosecution under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said
part of statement which is completely false would be within
the purview of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and would amount
to giving a false evidence. It is further submitted that when
the statements are made then without any support or
evidence, such admission is a false which is elicited by the
cross-examination. It is stated that the person who deposes
false evidence would be liable to be prosecuted. He would
submit that this part of the false evidence adduced was
completely ignored by the learned trial Court, hence this
appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would
FAM No. 9 of 2021
submit that the decree of divorce has already been granted
on the basis of cruelty which was a primary ground and one
of the incident of cruelty was deposed by respondent/
witness. Therefore, at this juncture, it would completely lead
to a wrong finding of fact to draw inference to say that the
respondent has given false evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the documents including the deposition of the respondent.
7. In a matrimonial case, Ganesh Agrawal/respondent was
examined as a witness. On a deposition under Order 18
Rule 4 of the C.P.C., in the matrimonial case, on behalf of
the wife, the witness deposed that the husband has filed a
false case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 of cheque bounce in connivance with Sunil Rajgir
against wife. He has further deposed that at one point of
time Sunil Rajgir has also made a false report against him
for the reason that he was deposing on behalf of wife.
Further, the deposition purports that the witness do not
know any person as Sunil Rajgir and he has no business
with the subject cheque bounce. He further shows inability
as to whether any such proceedings under the Negotiable
Instrument Act,1881 are pending or not. By reading the
examination and the cross-examination nothing can be
inferred that any false evidence has been given specially in
FAM No. 9 of 2021
the background of the fact when it is admitted that the wife
was granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The cruelty may be a cluster of evidence and no straight-
jacket formula can be adopted, therefore, by picking up
some statements of the witness to say that false evidence
has been adduced, it would amount to miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge
Ayushi/Amar
