Forging High Court Orders to Defeat Execution Proceedings Is Criminal Contempt of the Highest Order: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Three Accused

Creating Fake Judicial Orders and Submitting Them in Court Is One of the Most Dreaded Acts of Contempt: -  In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of three individuals for criminal contempt. The apex court held that forging High Court orders and submitting them to obstruct execution of a civil decree amounts to gross interference with the administration of justice and constitutes a clear case of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Though the conviction was confirmed, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from six months to one month’s simple imprisonment, considering the overall circumstances.

The contempt arose from a civil decree passed in 2004 by the District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, in favour of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust, for possession and rent arrears. When attempts were made in April 2018 to execute the decree, the judgment debtors (contemnors) obstructed execution by submitting forged interim orders purportedly from the High Court of Madras, falsely staying the execution.

The forged orders bore the name of a sitting judge and referenced fictitious Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) that were never filed, and in which the said judge was not even rostered on the claimed date. This prompted a writ petition (W.P. No. 22410 of 2018) by the decree-holder, resulting in a criminal contempt reference to a Division Bench of the High Court. FIRs were registered, investigation was undertaken by the CBCID, and contempt notices were eventually issued.

Whether Forging and Using Fake Judicial Orders to Stall Execution Amounts to Criminal Contempt

The Court decisively affirmed this.

“Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record.”

The fabricated orders were deliberately produced before the bailiff to frustrate delivery of possession, which the Court held to be a direct interference with judicial proceedings, and thus squarely within Section 2(c)(iii).

The apex court also relied on precedent: “A misleading or wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings.”

(In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501)

It reiterated that the judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law, and quoting from Vinay Chandra Mishra [(1995) 2 SCC 584]: “The threat of immediate punishment is the most effective deterrent against misconduct. So long as the contemner’s interests are safeguarded by giving him an opportunity of being heard, even summary procedure is commended and not faulted.”

Whether the Contempt Proceedings Were Barred by Limitation Under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The appellants argued that since the fake orders were submitted in April 2018 and contempt notices were issued only in 2022, the action was barred under Section 20, which prescribes a one-year limit.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, affirming the High Court’s reasoning that: “The present contempt proceeding has its root in WP No. 22410 of 2018... preferred on 20.08.2018... well within one year from 17.04.2018.”

Moreover, relying on Pallav Sheth v. Custodian [(2001) 7 SCC 549], the Court held: “If the interpretation of Section 20 put in Om Prakash Jaiswal is correct, it would mean that notwithstanding both the subordinate court and the High Court being satisfied that contempt has been committed, the High Court would become powerless to act. Such a rigid interpretation must therefore be avoided.”

It emphasized that initiation of contempt occurs when the court applies its mind, not merely when formal notice is issued.

Whether Standard of Proof in Criminal Contempt Was Duly Satisfied

The appellants contended that the conviction was based on probabilities, not strict proof. Rejecting this, the Court found the chain of events and evidence fully established beyond reasonable doubt:

• Admitted affidavits from one contemnor (C3) acknowledging submission of forged orders.

• Telephonic conversations revealing conspiracy.

• Voice samples, forensic reports, and statements under Section 164 CrPC from key witnesses.

• Discovery of forged orders at the Digital Net Centre and email trails linking the accused.

“Despite observation by the High Court, we are of the view that present is a case where it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the present appellants have either used or created fake High Court interim orders.”

The Supreme Court concluded: “We have no hesitation in affirming the finding of guilt... The present is not a case of mere probability... but a proved case of commission of offence.”

However, considering the overall facts, including the time lapse and nature of the role played, it reduced the sentence:

“...the same appears to be harsh... ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.”

This decision stands as a strong warning against attempts to manipulate judicial processes by forging court orders. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of court records, and underscored that even producing and relying upon fabricated judicial documents, regardless of authorship, constitutes criminal contempt. At the same time, it balanced punishment by moderating the sentence in view of mitigating circumstances, reaffirming its role as a court of both law and justice.

Date of Decision: 2 May 2025