SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN [APPELLANT] Vs. HIGH COURT OF MADRAS [ RESPONDENT]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5245 OF 2024

(2JB, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA JJ., delivered by PRASHANT MISHRA, J.)

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, upheld the conviction of three individuals who had forged interim orders from the Madras High Court, confirming that creating fake court orders is one of the most serious acts of contempt of court. The appellants had been convicted by the High Court for contempt and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for their role in fabricating these orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, stating that the creation and use of fake court orders are not mere probabilities of crime but proven acts of forgery and contempt that undermine the administration of justice.

The case began when the District Munsiff Court of Tiruchengode passed a decree in favor of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust, ordering the recovery of possession and arrears of rent from the appellants. After the appellants’ appeals were dismissed, they attempted to stall the execution of the decree by presenting forged interim orders from the Madras High Court. Upon verification, it was revealed that these orders were fabricated using forgery and impersonation, and one of the appellants admitted to the crime. The forged orders had been prepared in a digital center with the help of another appellant.

The appellants were sentenced to six months of imprisonment for their actions, but the case against two of them was abated due to their deaths. The Supreme Court’s bench, consisting of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, stated that the creation of fake court orders is a grave act that not only obstructs the judicial process but also involves the crime of forgery, which is a serious offense. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of contempt of court proceedings is to preserve the integrity and purity of the judicial process and that any attempt to use fabricated court orders to gain an unjust advantage constitutes a direct interference with justice.

In its judgment, the Court highlighted that the mere use of a fabricated order, even by a person who is not the forger, is enough to hold the person accountable for contempt. In this case, the third appellant, who benefited from the fake orders, was also found guilty of contempt. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the contempt action was not barred by limitation, as it had been initiated within the legally prescribed period after the fake orders were presented in 2018.

While the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction, it modified the sentence from six months to one month of simple imprisonment, indicating a more lenient approach but still emphasizing the seriousness of the crime. The ruling serves as a stern reminder of the importance of maintaining the sanctity of judicial orders and highlights the severe consequences of attempting to subvert the legal process through forgery and misrepresentation.