Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
High Court Of Karnataka, Represented By The Registrar General – Appellant
Versus
K. Dhananjay, S/o Late K. Krishnappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. foundation for initiating contempt based on responses and actions taken. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. clear involvement of accused in falsification of documents. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. the court decision reflects the determination and consequence of contempt. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
A suo motu Criminal Contempt Case No. 8/2019 was initiated on the basis of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.03.2019 in W.P. No. 38412/2014, wherein the Court passed the following order:
"BVNJ/HTNPJ:
21.03.2019
Sri. L. Harish Kumar, learned Central Government of Standing Counsel has submitted his memo appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 today. The same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned senior counsel, Sri Ramdas for the petitioner/respondent No.1 who is appearing in-person and learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri L. Harish Kumar for respondent No.3.
3. Petitioner has filed an application i.e., I.A.2/2019 seeking initiation of suo moto action for criminal contempt against respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity). According to petitioner, this writ petiti
The act of fabricating and filing documents on behalf of the Union of India by an individual constitutes criminal contempt and is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The judgment highlights the gravity of contempt for derogatory statements against judicial authority, emphasizing accountability under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural....
Courts Act is very wide and squarely covers all the aforesaid acts committed by Accused Nos.2 and 3. In view of the above, Accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed criminal contempt as contemplated under t....
The court established that fabricating court orders constitutes criminal contempt, interfering with justice and warranting severe penalties under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Contempt of Court by Advocate – Unconditional apology tendered by contemnor cannot always dilute his act.
The court found that making unfounded allegations against judges and judicial officers constitutes criminal contempt, undermining public confidence in the justice system.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
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
