Cheque issued to secure withdrawal of pending contempt case amounts to criminal contempt, Karnataka HC rules

The complainant had filed CCC No. 1228/2015 against police officers concerning a ‘B’ report filed during an interim order in proceedings arising from his criminal complaint against the accused.

The accused admitted issuing a cheque for Rs.1,00,000, with an endorsement stating it was towards an agreement and the withdrawal of CCC No. 1228/2015, and that it should be presented after withdrawal.

The complainant encashed the cheque but alleged that it had been issued under intimidation.

With the Advocate General’s consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, he initiated this criminal contempt proceeding.

The Court framed a charge alleging that the accused pressured and threatened him to withdraw the earlier contempt petition; the matter proceeded to trial.

The complainant’s encashment of the cheque and subsequent withdrawal of CCC No. 1228/2015 were also considered by the Court.

1. Whether the accused’s issuance of a cheque on the condition that the complainant withdraw CCC No. 1228/2015 amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Whether the complainant’s conduct in encashing the cheque and pursuing the contempt proceedings warranted an adverse order, including costs.

The Court considered Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 2(c), 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt to include conduct that interferes, or tends to interfere, with the due course of a judicial proceeding or the administration of justice.

Section 12 provides for punishment for contempt.

Section 15 governs cognizance of criminal contempt, including the requirement of consent for a private complainant’s motion.

The Court also stated that contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary and is exercised to uphold the majesty of the Court; a complainant’s compromised conduct may weigh against the complainant and be relevant to the Court’s assessment.

The accused admitted issuing the cheque and its endorsement linking payment to withdrawal of the pending contempt petition.

The Court held that conditioning payment on withdrawal of a judicial proceeding interfered with the administration of justice and intimidated the complainant, notwithstanding the complainant’s encashment of the cheque.

At the same time, the complainant’s decision to encash the cheque and later pursue contempt proceedings—and his subsequent withdrawal of the earlier petition—was found blameworthy and to have consumed judicial time in a personal dispute.

The Court therefore treated the complainant’s conduct as warranting costs, while not absolving the accused of contempt.

It sentenced him to simple imprisonment until 5:00 p.m. on the day of judgment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000, with one day’s simple imprisonment in default.

The complainant was not convicted, but was ordered to pay Rs.10,000 to the Registry as costs.

The Court also directed issuance of a conviction warrant and disposal of pending applications.