Creating Fake Orders Of Court One Of The Most Dreaded Acts Of Contempt, Has Inbuilt Intention Of Committing Forgery Of Record: Supreme Court Confirms Conviction Of 3 Accused
|The three appellants before the Supreme Court stood convicted by the High Court for committing contempt of Court and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
While confirming the conviction of three accused persons for creating bogus orders of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court has held that creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court.
The three appellants before the Apex Court stood convicted by the High Court for committing contempt of Court and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellants called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the High Court in the appeals.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said, “Despite observation by the High Court, we are of the view that present is a case where it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the present appellants/contemnors have either used or created fake High Court interim orders. It is not a case of mere probability of commission of offence rather it is a proved case of commission of offence. Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record. Therefore, the charge of contempt is fully proved against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur represented the Appellant while AOR Vikash Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, passed a decree in a suit in favor of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust ordering recovery of possession and arrears of rent from the Contemnors. The Contemnors preferred appeal suits, which were dismissed. The Decree Holder preferred Execution Petition, and when the Court Amin went to execute the decree to effect delivery of possession, the Contemnors produced interim orders passed by the Madras High Court staying the decree.
On verification, it was found, the said orders produced before the Execution Court were fraudulently created by committing forgery and impersonation in the name of the Judge of the High Court. One of the contemnors, when arrested, made a statement about how the fake order copies were prepared with the help of another Contemnor in a Digital Net Centre at Bhavani. The High Court found that the three appellants were responsible for the preparation of bogus High Court interim orders and accordingly sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Since the first two contemnors died, the case stood abated against them.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the High Court had recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants/contemnors based on the report filed by CBCID and the affidavits filed by the appellants in response to the statutory notice issued against them. As per the Bench, the case against the appellants for committing contempt had been found proved by the High Court based on cogent and reliable material available on record and the same was recorded after considering their stand taken in the affidavit.
It was also noticed by the Bench that the chain of events emerging from 2018 onwards, when the fake orders were presented at the time when the bailiff tried to effect delivery of possession, had been found established.
“The sole object of the Court wielding its power to punish for contempt is always for maintaining the purity of administration of justice. Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. A misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings”, it said.
The Bench held, “When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication. [See: In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh). Thus, C3, who is the beneficiary of the fake interim orders is rightly held guilty of contempt.”
It was stated by the Bench that the contempt action was not barred by limitation as initiation of contempt action was to be treated to have been taken on September 5, 2018 when the Single Judge dealing with the writ petition so directed and this date was within one year from when the fake orders were presented before the Court Amin.
Thus, affirming the finding of guilt of commission of contempt by the appellants, the Bench allowed the appeals. The Apex Court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence from simple imprisonment for six months to simple imprisonment for one month.
Cause Title: Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 619)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Sonia Mathur, S. Nagamuthu, C. Paramasivam, Nachiketa Joshi, Advocates Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Subhodh Patil, AOR Aditya Sharma, Advocates Ajay Awasthi, Alabhya Dhamija, Richa Vishwakarma, Shriya Gilhotra, Stuti Wason, Purushottam Tiwari, AOR Vairawan A.S, M.P. Parthiban, Advocates Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Ankur Prakash, Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K
Respondent: Senior Advocate S Gurukrishna Kumar, AOR Vikash Singh, AOR V. Balachandran, Advocate Siddharth Naidu