#criminal contempt

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that mere non-disclosure of a lease deed in civil proceedings does not attract criminal liability under Section 340 CrPC unless there is proof of deliberate falsehood or deception of the court. The judgment underscores that criminal action requires clear prima facie impact on the administration of justice, protecting litigants from frivolous prosecutions.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against an individual who attempted to personally contact a judge regarding a pending writ petition, affirming that any unauthorized attempt to influence judicial decision-making undermines the core principle of impartial adjudication. This ruling reinforces that judicial integrity is non-negotiable-even private, non-public attempts to sway a judge constitute contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Delhi High Court holds that filing petitions based on forged documents and false affidavits constitutes deliberate falsehood in judicial proceedings, triggering criminal liability under Section 340 CrPC.