1. Forgery and use of fabricated High Court stay orders to obstruct execution of a decree — Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 765
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
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Subhodh Patil, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Ms. Stuti Wason, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mr. S Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Subhodh Patil, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Ms. Stuti Wason, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mr. S Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.
Contempt of court conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; courts have inherent power to ensure justice, unaffected by procedural timelines in cases of fraud.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 15(1) and 18(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 466, 468, 471 - Conviction for contempt based on the creation and submission of forged court orders by the appellants to a bailiff during execution of a decree. The High Court found that the appellants were responsible for preparing and producing fake orders, leading to their conviction for contempt of court, motivating the need for maintaining the integrity of judicial processes. (Para 8, 12, 17)
(B) Burden of proof - Standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt, but interpreted flexibly; even if charges weren't formally framed, the essence of allegations must be conveyed to the contemner. (Para 10)
(C) Limitation - The initiations of contempt proceedings are not barred by limitation when evidence is discovered and reported promptly without undue delay, particularly in cases where the court acts suo motu. (Para 14)
Judgement Key Points
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.
What is the standard of proof required for contempt of court convictions?
How are limitations on contempt proceedings interpreted when fraud is involved?
What is the proper procedure for initiating contempt proceedings against individuals?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Limitation under Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act — Requirement of formal charges — Standard of proof in criminal contempt — Parity in benefit of doubt. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Forging court orders undermines the administration of justice — Summary procedure in contempt is permissible — Constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 215 override statutory limitations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Constitutional powers of Courts of Record under Articles 129 and 215 cannot be curtailed by statutory limitation periods under the Contempt of Courts Act. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 )
5. Conviction for contempt affirmed — Sentence modified from six months to one month simple imprisonment. (Para 17 )
6. Does Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, strictly bar proceedings initiated after one year?
No. The constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts as Courts of Record under Articles 129 and 215 cannot be curtailed by ordinary legislation. Limitation is interpreted to avoid anomalies, and initiation occurs when an application is filed or the court issues a suo motu notice. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Is it mandatory to frame formal charges in criminal contempt proceedings?
No. Criminal contempt is an offence sui generis and the procedure is summary. Formal charges are not necessary as long as the contemnor is aware of the specific allegations and the gist of the charges is clear. (Para 10 )
8. Can a person be held guilty of contempt if they used a forged court order they did not create?
Yes. The utilization of a fabricated order to obtain an undue benefit is sufficient to hold a person guilty of contempt, regardless of whether they were the author of the fabrication. (Para 8 )
9. What is the standard of proof required for conviction in criminal contempt?
While criminal contempt partakes of the nature of a criminal charge and must be established beyond reasonable doubt, the court may convict based on cogent and reliable material that proves the commission of the offence. (Para 16 )
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 investigation and submitted a report on 14.08.2019 in C.C. No. 537 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam against the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 5.
3.5. On account of the case bundle relating to W.P. No. 22410 of 2018 missing in the Registry, the criminal contempt was not numbered from 2018 to 2022. On the Division Bench being informed regularly, the bundle was traced, and the contempt petition was numbered as 2493 of 2022. Initially, statutory notice was issued to the Contemnor
