Back
2003 Supreme(Kar) 623
Karnataka High Court
Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore - Appellant
Versus
Chidambara - Respondent
Decided On : 07-30-03
CRI.C.C.C : 26 of 2000
B.C.Muddappa, M.J.Alva, M.T.Nanaiah, UDAYA KUMAR
Headnote:Intentionally impersonating others for obtaining relief in judicial proceedings
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 Section 2 - Section 2(c) -Parties to the proceedings getting some other persons impersonated as respondents and thereby getting the order -real respondents coming on to the scene -parties are liable for contempt.
[A. M. Farooq & S. R. Bannurmath, JJ.] - The accused-1 has tried to commit fraud on the Court by bringing persons to impersonate as the contesting respondents in the Writ appeal and thereafter, pursued the Court to accept the compromise petition as it the contesting parties has settled the matter and agreed for not only allowing the Writ Appeal but also to destroy the root or cause by virtue of the order directing the withdrawal of the Writ Petition. Hence, accused-1 guilty of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(C) of the Act. Apart from the aforesaid offence, the conduct of the accused before the Court is also worth noticing. In C.P. though he has admitted on oath on 17-11-2000 that three persons impersonated the real contesting respondents, in the Writ appeal, in this proceedings he has even denied the same and has stated that the has given a false statement in the C.P. when his sworn statement was being recorded. This act of the accused-1 apart from commission of contempt of Courts Act also amounts to commission of an offence of perjury.
Cases Referred:
2001 (5) SCC 501; 1995 (1) SCC 421; AIR 1995 SC 1795.
Intentionally affecting the process of administration of justice
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 340(3)(d) -Impersonating others and fabricating evidence intentionally -parties to a judicial proceeding impersonat other people, a fabricating evidence and obtaining beneficial relief -liable for punishment under the Section 193 of Indian Penal Code -Registrar to lodge a complaint.
[A. M. Farooq & S. R. Bannurmath, JJ.] - Apart from committing contempt of Court the acused-1 has also committed an offence of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC committed in relation to proceedings of the Court. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed under Section 340(3)(b) Cr.P.C. to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate in this ragard.
Cases Referred: 2001 (5) SCC 501; 1995 (1) SCC 421; AIR 1995 SC 1795.
Impersonating others and fabricating evidence intentionally
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860-
Section 193 -Parties to a judicial proceeding impersonated other people, fabricated evidence and obtained beneficial relief -liable for punishment under the Section.
[A. M. Farooq & S. R. Bannurmath, JJ.] - Apart from committing contempt of Court the accused-1 has also committed an offence of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC committed in relation to proceedings of the Court.
Cases Referred: 2001 (5) SCC 501; 1995 (1) SCC 421; AIR 1995 SC 1795.
( 1 ) E stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Courts atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. The polluters of judicial firmament are therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain sublimity of Courts environment; so also to enable to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
( 2 ) ANY one who takes recourse to fraud, deflects course of judicial proceedings, or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same amounts to interference with the administration of justice. As such the persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar activity, which tends to shake the faith of the people in the system of administration of justice. Thus are the observations of the Honble Supreme Court made in cases bineet Kumar Singh, In Re (2001) 5 SCC 501: (2001 Crilj2575 : AIR 2001 SC2018); chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 : (1994 AIR SCW 4994); dhananjaya Sharma v. State of Haryana, (AIR 1995 SC 1795 ).
( 3 ) THE present suo motu registered case is also one of such instances where this court is taken for ride by the accused to obtain an order favourable and beneficial to the contemners.
( 4 ) THE brief facts leading to the present proceedings are as follows:- accused No. 1 is the appellant in W. A. No. 4607/1998 filed on 6-10-1998 challenging the order of the learned single Judge of this Court W. P. No. 17853/1993. On 15-9-1999 the writ appeal was listed before the division Bench of this Court for preliminary hearing. The contesting respondents in the writ appeal namely respondent/caveator nos. 1 to 4 were represented by their Counsel Sri Chandranath Ariga (C. W. 5 ). On that day a submission was made on behalf of accused No. 1 that the matter was settled by the parties and as per the settlement, the appeal was to be allowed and the contesting respondents to withdraw the writ petition. Noting this submission, the Division Bench adjourned the case to 7-10-1999 to enable the counsel for the parties to file a written compromise petition and also directed the counsel to keep all the parties present on 7-10-1999 for the purpose of recording their statements in respect of compromise. Accordingly, on the next day viz. , 7-10-1999 a compromise memo under Order 23, Rule 3 duly signed by all the parties and their counsel came to be presented to the Court. After recording the statements of the parties including the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the Court having prima facie satis" fled that the parties have entered into compromise, allowed the compromise petition and ordered that the writ appeal be allowed; the impugned order of the learned singly judge passed in W. P. No. 17853/1993 be set aside and the contesting respondents were permitted to withdraw the writ petition filed by them. Consequently, the Writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
( 5 ) LATER-ON C. P. No. 1362/2000 came to be filed by Sri Balakrishna Shastry, Advocate, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4. Similarly C. P. No. 1047/2000 also came to be filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 and 12 with common prayers for recalling the order dated 7-10-1999 passed by the Division Bench regarding the compromise, on the ground that neither these respondents viz. , respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 were present or entered their appearance in the writ appeal nor had they signed and filed any compromise petition and as such, they suspect that the compromise on their behalf is a fraud committed on the Court either by misrepresentation or by impersonation.
( 6 ) THE C. Ps. were taken up for consideration on 17-11-2000 and after recording the statement of accused No. 1 herein, having prima facie satisfied that the Court has (sic) by misrepresentation and playing fraud, accused No. 1 has obtained the order recording compromise and not only allowing his writ appeal but writ petition it
