Karnataka high court sends Bengaluru resident to jail for criminal contempt, forgery | Bengaluru News

Spread the love


Karnataka high court sends Bengaluru resident to jail for criminal contempt, forgery

Bengaluru: The high court has sentenced Bengaluru resident K Dhananjay to four months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 in each of two criminal contempt cases—one filed by Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA) and another initiated suo motu. The order was issued on Dec 11, and Dhananjay has since been sent to prison.The first case, filed by IIA in 2018, accused Dhananjay of repeatedly making false, reckless, and unsubstantiated allegations against members of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and judges of the Karnataka high court in various proceedings and representations. Dhananjay had been dismissed from service by IIA.In the suo motu contempt case registered in 2019, Dhananjay was accused of impersonating a central govt advocate, L Harish Kumar, by submitting a statement of objections with a forged signature in Jan-Feb 2019. At that time, Kumar was undergoing treatment for a brain tumour and only appeared before the court on March 31, 2019, when he denied filing any objections earlier. Kumar has since passed away.The division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Vijayakumar A Patil noted that Dhananjay attempted to justify his actions while making scandalous and unfounded statements against the judiciary as a whole. “His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral, and judicial codes of conduct. We are of the clear opinion that if conduct of this nature is not punished, sociopaths like the accused are likely to repeat such offences with impunity, which would endanger the rule of law and the judicial system as a whole,” the bench added.Regarding the suo motu petition, the bench concluded that the evidence proved Dhananjay forged the signature of advocate L Harish Kumar and filed objections before the court. “This conduct clearly amounts to interference with the court’s process and meets the definition of criminal contempt. Therefore, we hold him guilty of contempt of court,” the order stated.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *