Madras High Court holds that impersonation on public documents and disobedience to stay orders amount to actionable contempt; affirms existing precedent binding on subordinate courts in its jurisdiction
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Suo Moto Cont.P.No.2136 of 2025 of High Court of Madras vs The Superintendent of Police and 2 others |
| CNR | HCMA011448352025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Closed |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan |
| Court | High Court of Madras |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Contempt of Court / Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether forging a superior officer’s signature on a charge sheet and proceeding with investigation despite a court stay order constitutes contempt of court |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that impersonating a superior officer by forging their signature on a charge sheet constitutes a clear violation of its stay order and amounts to contempt. Such conduct undermines the court’s authority and jeopardises personal liberty. Wilful disobedience of judicial directions by any person, including subordinate officers acting on instructions, cannot be excused as mere administrative lapse. The High Court’s inherent power to punish contempt extends to all who wilfully violate its orders to uphold the rule of law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Investigation into Crime No. 409 of 2023 was stayed by this Court on 16-08-2023. Despite the stay, respondents proceeded with the probe and filed a charge sheet on 22-05-2024. The fourth respondent had been transferred on 16-11-2023 and was not the Station House Officer when the charge sheet was signed. The fifth respondent admitted impersonating the fourth respondent’s signature on instructions. Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated on 12-06-2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Forging a superior officer’s signature on a charge sheet is actionable as contempt of court.
- Proceeding with investigation and filing a charge sheet in violation of a stay order constitutes wilful disobedience.
- The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt extends to any public servant who defies its orders, even if acting on instructions.
- A Sub-Inspector may be sentenced to simple imprisonment for contempt for impersonation and document forgery.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court recalled its stay order dated 16-08-2023 on further investigation in Crime No. 409 of 2023.
- It found that respondents ignored the stay and filed a charge sheet on 22-05-2024.
- The fourth respondent was held not to be the Station House Officer on that date.
- The fifth respondent impersonated the fourth respondent’s signature on the charge sheet.
- The court concluded that forging a public document and disobeying a judicial order amount to contempt under its inherent powers, warranting custodial sentence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that respondents willfully disobeyed the stay order dated 16-08-2023 and proceeded with investigation.
Fourth Respondent
- Submitted that he had been transferred on 16-11-2023 and did not sign the charge sheet.
Fifth Respondent
- Admitted that he affixed the fourth respondent’s signature on instructions from the fourth respondent.
Factual Background
Investigation in Crime No. 409 of 2023 was stayed by this Court on 16-08-2023. Despite the stay, a charge sheet was filed on 22-05-2024. The officer originally in charge had been transferred on 16-11-2023. A Sub-Inspector admitted to impersonating the transferred officer’s signature. Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated on 12-06-2025, leading to conviction of the impersonator.
Statutory Analysis
The court invoked its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish contempt of court. No specific provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act were cited beyond the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with its orders.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed