1 2025:CGHC:14352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1496 of 2023 Chandan Sahu S/o Shri Suraj Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Martara, P.S. Chowky Khandsara Thana, Bemetara, Civil, Tehsil And Revenue District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Deepa Sahu D/o Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Tehsil Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 25.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District- Bemetara (C.G.) wherein the application filed the appellant under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. along with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Act, 1971 was dismissed for initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent. 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the appellant, Chandan Sahu is the husband of the respondent Deepa Sahu. The marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 20/05/2021 and the appellant was not allowed to contact respondent before the marriage by her father and brother of the citing the reason that she does not use mobile phone whereas in reality, she was using multiple numbers and was in continuous contact with one Tushar Sahu and Digvijay Vare. The father and brother of the respondent hid this fact from the appellant/husband and after the marriage, it came to the knowledge of the appellant that his wife had a love-affair and upon confrontation by him, she admitted that she is in love with Tushar Sahu and her marriage has been solemnized with the appellant against her will by her family members. After the marriage with the appellant, the wife/respondent used to still have contact with other males on phone and used to be on phone for long hours. The appellant narrated the conduct of the respondent/wife to her father in June 2021 and also showed the love messages but to his shock, her father did nothing. Soon thereafter, when the appellant was checking the phone of his wife, there were several love messages on her phone and upon asking the respondent/wife about the said messages, she threatened the appellant saying that if he narrates anything about this to her family, she will commit suicide by falsely 3 implicating the appellant in a suicide note. Later, on 10/08/2021, the appellant-husband narrated the entire ordeal to the father of the respondent who then spoke to her and gave her rational advice. 4. Thereafter, the very next day i.e. on 11/08/2021, the complainant upon reaching her marital home then again started threatening the present appellant of implicating his family in a false case and she was then exhaustively advised to not commit such acts and whenever the husband used to go to the house of his father-in- law, he was always asked to live his family and start residing in the parental house of the respondent-wife. On 22/09/2021, the respondent returned to the marital home with her brother and the appellant-husband then asked her to call his father and at around 3.30 PM, the father-in-law of the husband along with few other persons arrived at his house and the husband then requested them to talk sense in the mind of her daughter, to which the respondent and her brother then assaulted the mother of the appellant and upon trying to stop the assault, the husband was also beaten by the brother and father of the respondent-wife with the threats that they will implicate him in a false case. The respondent/wife then on 23/09/2021 gave a written report to the Station-in-charge, Bemetara, and District- Bemetara narrating entire facts. On 20/10/2021, the police-Bemetara then lodged an FIR under section 498-A of IPC, 1860 against the present appellant and his family members wherein a false story of dowry 4 harassment and cruelty was narrated by the respondent-wife against the present appellant and the police then during the course of investigation, added charge of section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in the instant case and filed the charge- sheet against them on 15/11/2021 before the learned CJM, Bemetara under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 and the proceedings with respect to the FIR no. 741/2021 is in progress before the Ld. JMFC, Bemetara in criminal case no. 2526/2021. 5. Meanwhile the respondent then preferred an application under section 125 of CrPC for the grant of maintenance against the present appellant and the said application was then registered as Misc. Criminal Cases/200/2022 bearing title "Smt. Deepa vs. Chandan and in pursuance of the same, the appellant also filed an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. The respondent/wife then objected on the affidavit preferred by the appellant wherein he contended that hiding any material fact will amount to contempt of court and then preferred an application under section 340 read with section 195 of CrPC, 1973 along with section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the learned Family Court, Bemetara on the grounds that his wife has presented a false affidavit, made false statements before the said learned Court and has also committed contempt of court in the proceedings of section 125 CrPC, 1973. The said application of the appellant has dismissed by the learned Family Court vide 5 order dated 17.03.2023, against which, the appellant has preferred this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has intentionally given false evidence before the learned Family Court which leads to the commission of offence of perjury and also has made false affidavit for getting a favorable order in her favour which clearly comes in the purview of committing the offence when the document (false affidavit) has become custodia legis and is in custody of the learned trial Court. By her overt conduct, the respondent has tried to misuse the legal provisions and enumerated laws granted in her favour and should be dealt sternly by initiation of the proceedings under the applicable laws as mandated by the provisions of section 340 read with section 195 of the CrPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that tendering false affidavits or statements amounts to contempt of court and in the said light, the respondent deserves to be punished for taking the proceedings of the learned trial Court lightly and trying to undermine its authority by filing false affidavit an false information. The prima-facie involvement of the respondent stands proved without any doubt by perusing the documents annexed herewith including her affidavit of disclosure and deposition made before the learned Family Court, Bemetara and the learned trial Court ought to have conducted a preliminary inquiry into the said matter as mandated by the provisions of section 340 of CrPC instead it has not given any reasoning or 6 finding related to the claim of the appellant that someone else has signed on her behalf with the knowledge of the respondent thereby making a mockery of the court proceedings. Lastly, the learned Family Court overlooked the fact that the said conduct of the respondent comes within the purview of committing an offence which thereby interferes with the administration of justice and the learned Court below overlooked the fact that there exists a specific provision to be followed while disposing an application moved under section 340 of CrPC and the application of the appellant was required to be dealt under the same procedure. 7. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and states that the learned Family Court after considering all the aspects, has rightly rejected the application of the appellant under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., in which, no interference is sought for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal. 9. From perusal of impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, goes to show that it has rejected the application of the appellant under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. demanding action on the afÏdavit given by Deepa Sahu/respondent herein holding that general contradictions in the statements of witnesses are a common thing in judicial proceedings. Even honest and truthful witnesses can sometimes be 7 inconsistent on some matters, because the power of observation, memory, retention and recall is different for each person. If general contradictions are made the basis of criminal proceedings, then no case will remain untouched by it. In the order dated 15.03.2022 passed under Section 125 in M.J.C. Case No. 200/2022 between the two parties, the court has not made any such comment that the respondent / Deepa Sahu in that case has given false evidence. Therefore, the minor contradiction in the afÏdavit given by Deepa Sahu under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CrPC and in the cross- examination is not of such a nature that it affects the administration of justice. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the view that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons and the trial is pending and as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter. The appeal lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. It has been informed that the trial court records have been tagged with this appeal. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the records of the case to the Family Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal