'Creating Fake Order Is Contempt Of Court' : Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Litigant Who Forged HC Order

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a litigant for criminal contempt for forging an order of the High Court to secure a stay on the execution of a decree in a suit related to the recovery of possession and rent from the litigant.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the appellant forged three interim orders and presented them as orders passed by the Madras High Court. The numbers of the Civil Revision Petitions were fictitious.

The Madras High Court found that no such CRPs were ever filed, and the particular bench that purportedly passed the fake interim order was not assigned to hear CRPs. Moreover, the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) confirmed that the signatures, seals, and formatting of the fake orders did not match genuine High Court documents.

Treating the appellant's acts as a severe affront to judicial authority, the High Court imposed six months' imprisonment on him, finding him guilty of contempt of court.

Challenging the imprisonment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's findings, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed:

“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. Therefore, the charge of contempt is fully proved against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”, the court said.

Rejecting the appellant's argument that charges beyond reasonable doubt were not proved against him, the Court justified the High Court suo moto initiation of the contempt proceedings against the appellant stating that the conviction was based on conclusive evidence such as Forensic reports confirming the forged nature of the orders, confessional statements made by the Appellant.

“it is argued that the charge having not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellants cannot be punished. However, the present is a case where the High Court has initiated suo motu contempt on proved and admitted facts that C3 produced fake interim orders of the High Court and the same were prepared by C4 & C7. 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/contemnors have either used or created fake High Court interim orders. It is not a case of mere probability of commission of offence rather it is a proved case of commission of offence.”, the court noted.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court refused to interfere with the Conviction; however, it modified the sentence imposed on the appellant to only one month's imprisonment instead of six months imposed by the High Court.

Case Title: SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN VERSUS HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Subhodh Patil, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Ms. Stuti Wason, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Tiwari, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv. Mr. P. V. K. Deivendran, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S., AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K, Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv. Mr. K. M. Kalidharun, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR