Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Madras - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5245 of 2024
With
M. Muruganandam - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Madras Through the Registrar General - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4219 of 2024
With
S. Amal Raj - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Madras - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. .....of 2025 (@ Crl. A. Diary No. 45480 of 2024)
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Key Points: - Contempt of court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) . - Limitations on contempt proceedings do not apply when fraud prevents timely discovery, and courts can interpret provisions to avoid anomalies (!) (!) (!) . - Contempt proceedings can be initiated by court notice or application within one year of the contempt (!) (!) (!) . - Courts have inherent power to punish contempt to protect judicial integrity (!) (!) . - The court considered the facts and reduced the sentence from six months to one month (!) (!) . Important: Do not combine references; list each reference separately.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of contempt proceedings and fraudulent actions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against contempt charges, including limitation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of evidence and findings of guilt by the high court. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. discussion on standard of proof and procedural aspects of contempt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 5. judgment on the convicts and modification of the sentence. (Para 13 , 17) |
| 6. modification of sentence delivered with firm convictions. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Appeal arising out of Criminal Appeal Diary No. 45480 of 2024 is admitted.
2. The three appellants before us namely, Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan in Criminal Appeal No. 5245 of 2024 (Contemnor No. 4 before the High Court), M. Muruganandam in Criminal Appeal No. 4219 of 2024 (Contemnor No. 3 before the High Court) and S. Amal Raj in Criminal Appeal arising out of Criminal Appeal Diary No. 45480 of 2024 (Contemnor No. 7 before the High Court) stand convicted by the High Court for committing contempt of Court and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellants have called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the High Court in the present appeals.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode passed a decree dated 17.11.2004 in O.S. No. 212 of 2000 in favour of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust,1[“Decree Holder”] ordering recovery of possession and arrears of rent from the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 3. 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 on 17.04.2018 the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 3 produced interim orders passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. Nos. 1467 – 1469 of 2018 staying the decree.
3.1. The Decree Holder applied and obtained the copies of the said orders produced by the Contemnors in Execution Petition Nos. 14, 17 and 18 of 2014 and also entered caveat before the High Court. 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 of Madras.
3.2. The Decree Holder submitted a complaint to the High Court and Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District on 03.05.2018 and 15.05.2018 respectively. The Registrar General, High Court, forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal on 18.07.2018.
The Decree Holder then preferred W.P. No. 22410 of 2018 before the High Court to direct the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal to take action on the complaint dated 15.05.2018. In the meanwhile, First Information Report in Crime No. 8 of 2018 was registered by the District Crime Branch, Namakkal for offences under Sections 466 , 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860,2[‘IPC’] against the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 3/Judgment Debtors. The writ petition was disposed of on 05.09.2018 directing the registry to place the matter before the Division Bench, dealing with the criminal contempt matters, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, for the Division Bench to proceed with the matter in terms of Section 15 (1) read with Section 18 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, was also directed to monitor the investigation in DCB Crime No. 8 of 2018.
3.3. On 10.09.2018, the Contemnor No. 4/Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan,3[‘C4’] was arrested by the District Crime Branch, Namakkal and he made a statement about the manner in which the fake order copies were prepared with the help of Contemnor No. 6/P. Meiyappan,4[‘C6’] in a Digital Net Centre at Bhavani.
3.4. On 11.09.2018, Contemnor No. 3/M. Muruganandam,5[‘C3’] was arrested. He disclosed the manner in which the fraudulent order copies were obtained by the Contemnor No. 4 and Contemnor No. 7. The District Crime Branch, Namkkal completed the inve
Contempt of court conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; courts have inherent power to ensure justice, unaffected by procedural timelines in cases of fraud.
Any contempt proceedings initiated must comply with the one-year limitation period stipulated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, barring exceptional circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be scrupulously followed, and the powers under Article 215 of t....
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
The court established that fabricating court orders constitutes criminal contempt, interfering with justice and warranting severe penalties under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Judiciary possesses inherent powers under Article 215 to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings, independent of the Contempt of Courts Act, while conduct undermining judicial authority constitutes bo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
