Case Title: Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan vs. High Court of Madras
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 526
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction of an individual for criminal contempt of court after he was found guilty of forging High Court orders to fraudulently obtain a stay in a civil suit concerning possession and rent recovery.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra dealt with the appeal of the convicted person, who had forged three interim orders and falsely presented them as orders of the Madras High Court. These forged documents, bearing fictitious Civil Revision Petition (CRP) numbers, were submitted to secure a stay on the execution of a decree.
The Madras High Court had determined that no such CRPs had ever been filed. It also noted that the specific bench claimed to have passed these orders was not even assigned CRP matters. The Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) verified that the alleged High Court documents bore forged signatures, seals, and formatting inconsistent with genuine court orders.
Considering the severity of the forgery and its impact on the justice system, the High Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings and sentenced the appellant to six months’ imprisonment for criminal contempt.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, Justice Mishra, writing for the bench, affirmed the High Court’s findings and rejected the appellant’s arguments. The Court observed:
“Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt. It not only thwarts the administration of justice but involves deliberate forgery. Therefore, the charge of contempt is fully proved against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”
The Court emphasized that the conviction was based on conclusive evidence, including forensic reports and confessional statements from the appellant. It further stated that this was not a case of mere suspicion or probability, but of proven guilt.
However, while affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court modified the imprisonment from six months to one month.
