Judgment: 1. The applicants are the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 74/2012. An order was passed on 13.02.2012 and further proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gwalior, were stayed. The applicants/appellants preferred this application under Section 2(c) read with Section 12, 15 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, claiming that the non-applicant/contemner, who was the respondent No. 4 in the said Writ Appeal has interfered, obstructed in the administration of justice by filing forged/concocted documents before the Authority. 2. As per the applicants, the Writ Appeal was suffered several adjournments after the said order dated 13.2.2012 and on different dates the contemner was duly represented through his counsel. The contemner proceeded otherwise in the manner prescribed by filing forged, concocted and false documents before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gwalior. The contemner filed a list of the Executive Body Members of applicant No. 1/Society on 14.3.2012. The said list alongwith the pro-forma mentioned that election took place on 28.3.2011 and General Body Meeting took place on 28.02.2012. A copy of letter dated 17.4.2012 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gwalior to the Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Employment, Govt. of M.P. show that two lists as regards the election has been received. On the basis of the information submitted by the contemner, the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gwalior, informed the Punjab National Bank, Naya Bazar Branch, Gwalior in which the applicant No. 1/Society has its bank account. 3. The contemner on the basis of the concocted and forged documents not only tried to lower the authority but also tried to interfere with due process of judicial proceedings pending in the form of Writ Petition No. 74/2012 before this Court and obstructed the administration of justice and at the same time mis-lead the bank. 4. The applicants contend that earlier election took place on 6.2.2008 was not accepted by the authorities and the same was confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6019/2009 vide order dated 22.11.2010. Despite that the contemners mislead the Authority, Punjab National Bank and tried to play fraud upon this Court by concealing material facts. In fact, election held on 29.03.2008 was held valid vide order dated 22.11.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No. 6019/2009. Despite that the contemners mislead the Authority, Punjab National Bank and tried to play fraud upon this Court by concealing material facts. In fact, election held on 29.03.2008 was held valid vide order dated 22.11.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No. 6019/2009. The applicants appraised the situation in writing to the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gwalior, and drawn the attention of the Authority to the earlier letter issued by it on 17.4.2012. Because of the contemners filing of forged documents, the said letter was issued by the Assistant Registrar. 5. In the light of the above, prayed that non-applicant be suitably punished under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant vehemently opposed the submissions and claimed that Writ Petition was filed by the applicants which was registered as Writ Petition No. 7144/2011 (Pratap Vahini Samaj Kalyan Sanstha & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) which was decided by a Single Bench on 25.11.2011. Aggrieved by the order, the applicants filed Writ Appeal No. 74/12 (Pratap Vahini Samaj Kalyan Sanstha & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others). Earlier Writ Petition No. 6019/2009 filed by the members and office bearers of the applicants/Society in which Non-applicant was impleaded as non applicant No. 6 was decided. After the decision of Writ Petition No. 7144/11, a review petition No. 33/11 was filed by the applicants which was decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 2.2.2012 and the same was disposed of with the note that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, which warrants interference. 7. It is further stated at the bar by the counsel for the non-applicant that a S.L.P. is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is subjudice. Merely filing this contempt petition without any basis is only a tactics of the applicant. 8. Having gone through the details, it could be asserted that the present applicants have filed this contempt petition on the basis of a so called list submitted by the non-applicant before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gwalior. Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the action of non-applicant fall under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and is a "criminal contempt". 9. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicants in the case of Ranveer Yadav Vs. Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the action of non-applicant fall under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and is a "criminal contempt". 9. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicants in the case of Ranveer Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 11 S.C.C. 493 , Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India and Others, 2012 (2) M.P.L.J. 298, N.K. Jinnah & Another Vs. Sunil Finance Agencies Banking Cases, I (2002) BC 360, (Madras High Court) and Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, 1994 AIR SCW 4994. 10. We have considered the above contentions and perused the record. The citations placed before us are in different footing and does not squarely applicable in this case. The non-applicant/proposed contemner has allegedly submitted an application alongwith lists before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies,, Gwalior. It is not a case that the non-applicant/proposed contemner has filed any such false or fabricated document before this Court, therefore, it would not amount to filing of fabricated document with intent to deceive this Court so as to amount to "criminal contempt" of this Court. 11. "Criminal contempt" has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. The said definition is very wide. For a proper appreciation of the questions involved in this case the said definition is set out below: "2.(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings: or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. 12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that in this case, the so called offending acts of the non-applicant are specifically not coming under Sections 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii), and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 13. It may be noted that the Apex Court in Ranveer Yadav's Case (supra) observed that ........ " Contempt power is said to be an inherent attribute of a superior court of record which is not given to subordinate judiciary ..... 13. It may be noted that the Apex Court in Ranveer Yadav's Case (supra) observed that ........ " Contempt power is said to be an inherent attribute of a superior court of record which is not given to subordinate judiciary ..... but this power has to be exercised with utmost caution and in proper case only. 14. We do not find any substance in the application, therefore, we are not inclined to admit the application, hence, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.