Sohil Agrawal vs Ganesh Agrawal

Heard.

The instant appeal is against the order dated 19.3.2021 wherein an application filed by the appellant under Sections 193, 195, 190 (1)(A) and 211 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

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.

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.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would 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.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents including the deposition of the respondent.

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 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.

Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.