Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail

"Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt" – In an extraordinary case of judicial interference, the High Court of Karnataka has convicted a litigant for criminal contempt of court for forging the affidavit and impersonating a Central Government Standing Counsel in a writ petition. Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil sentenced the accused, K. Dhananjay, to four months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, holding that his actions amounted to a direct interference with the judicial process under Section 2(c) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The suo motu contempt action stemmed from proceedings in W.P. No. 38412/2014, when it was discovered that a fabricated statement of objections had been filed before the Court on behalf of the Union of India, bearing the forged signature of Sri L. Harish Kumar, the Central Government Standing Counsel, who categorically denied any knowledge of the filing.

“We find that the accused has not expressed any regret and continues his adamant stand” – Court rejects defence, orders custodial sentence

Forged filing, impersonation, and false affidavit submitted to Court – Bench holds conduct squarely within criminal contempt

Proceedings were initiated by the High Court itself through the Registrar General under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, following serious allegations that K. Dhananjay, the accused appearing in person, had prepared and filed a forged statement of objections dated 28.02.2019 purportedly on behalf of the Union of India, without any authority or instructions, and impersonated the Central Government Counsel.

Rejecting the accused’s defence that he had merely “assisted” the counsel, the Court held:

“It is clear from the evidence on record that it was not L. Harish Kumar who had prepared the objections or signed the same or even got the affidavit notarised before filing the objections on 28.02.2019.” [Para 13]

The Bench further noted: “We are of the opinion that the charge that the accused himself had forged the signature of L Harish Kumar and filed the objection before the Court stands proved… The said conduct of the accused clearly amounts to an interference with the process of the Court and answers the definition of Criminal Contempt.” [Para 14]

Forgery of Court Documents and Impersonation Proved by Multiple Witnesses

“Oath Commissioner confirmed signatures did not match genuine signature of counsel” – Evidence shows accused filed and served forged documents himself

The prosecution established its case through corroborative testimony from several witnesses, including the Assistant Registrar of the High Court, the Oath Commissioner, and practicing advocates.

• CW-3 (Oath Commissioner) confirmed that the signature in the oath register did not match that of Advocate L. Harish Kumar.

• CW-4 (Advocate Y. Radha) testified that the accused himself served the forged objections on her near Court Hall No. 3 on 02.03.2019.

• CW-5 (Advocate A. Rajesh), who personally knew Harish Kumar, testified that the counsel told him “one Dhananjay impersonated him.”

Additionally, Harish Kumar's own affidavit dated 21.03.2019 (Exhibit C4/D24) categorically stated:

“I have not received any instruction from Union of India to file any statement of objections… I have not prepared or signed any affidavit verifying the statement of objections filed on 28.02.2019.”

Defence of Accused Rejected as “False and Untenable”

Court finds accused “adamant” and lacking remorse – Denies any mitigating factors

Throughout the trial, K. Dhananjay maintained that he had only assisted the Central Government Counsel and claimed that the objections were in fact signed by Advocate Harish Kumar. He also alleged that the proceedings were a conspiracy against him orchestrated by advocates and judges to “destroy public justice.”

However, the Court found that:

“Though the accused has placed voluminous records in evidence, he has not succeeded in placing anything on record to show that the statement of objections had been prepared by Shri. L. Harish Kumar or that he had been entrusted to file the same.” [Para 11]

The Bench was particularly critical of the accused's conduct: “We find that the accused has not expressed any regret and continues his adamant stand. No mitigating factors have also been pleaded.” [Para 16]

The accused’s request for referral to a Magistrate for a “proper investigation” and his reliance on RTI applications and past case filings to prove inconsistencies were also found to be irrelevant and insufficient to counter the overwhelming evidence.

Attempt to Invoke Fundamental Rights Found Misplaced

“Constitutional rights are not a defence for forgery and obstruction of justice” – High Court refuses to entertain baseless constitutional arguments

The accused had argued that his fundamental rights under Article 21 and principles of natural justice were violated, and cited Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2011) to argue that he was being prosecuted without following proper procedure.

However, the Court rejected the invocation of constitutional rights in this context, holding that:

“The allegation of forgery, etc. are absolutely not the subject matter of contempt, but, the subject matter of a criminal court.”

Still, the Court clarified that contempt jurisdiction exists independently to uphold the majesty and sanctity of judicial proceedings, and the fabrication of pleadings and impersonation of counsel strikes at the root of the administration of justice.

“Custodial sentence is warranted” – Karnataka High Court orders immediate arrest

After holding the accused guilty of criminal contempt, the Court heard him on sentencing but found no remorse or mitigating explanation. Consequently, the Court imposed a custodial sentence, observing:

“Having considered the contentions advanced and the gravity of the contempt and the conduct of the accused as well as his age, we sentence the accused/contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of four months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.” [Para 18]

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to issue conviction warrant immediately under Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, and the accused was taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence.

This ruling sends a strong and unambiguous message: forgery, impersonation, and falsification of court records will not be tolerated, especially when they involve government representation and interfere with the administration of justice.

The Karnataka High Court, while safeguarding the sanctity of judicial proceedings, has upheld the principle that courts are not helpless when faced with deliberate attempts to mislead them and that such actions must be met with firm penal consequences.

Date of Decision: 11th December 2025