ORDER : 1. By order dated 13.03.2009 in W.P.No.14127/2005, the learned Single Judge has allowed I.A.No.2/2008 and directed reference of the matter to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the Accused. It is seen from the order dated 13.03.2009 that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14127/2005 has filed application I.A.No.2/2008 with a prayer to refer the matter to the Division Bench for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Accused, on the ground that Accused had produced Annexure-R3 purported to be a revised sanctioned plan issued on 26.11.1999, whereas Annexure-R3 (hereinafter referred to as revised sanctioned plan) was a tampered document filed to mislead the Court. 2. The Accused has filed her statement of objections to I.A.No.2/2008 before the learned Single Judge. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘Palike’) which had filed its objections to I.A.No.1/2008 has also produced the order, issued under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, reiterating its stand that the revised sanctioned plan was a created document. The Palike has also produced records to substantiate that there is no record available in its office with respect to the revised sanctioned plan and it is further stated that the construction on the 3rd and 4th floor of the property in question, belonging to Accused is unauthorized and illegal. 3. Based on the objections filed by the Palike and on going through the averments, document and the contentions raised, the learned Single Judge came to a prima facie conclusion that the Accused had committed a criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) (ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and accordingly referred the matter to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. 4. The respondent has filed her statement of objections narrating the background in which W.P.No.14127/2005 came to be filed. 4. The respondent has filed her statement of objections narrating the background in which W.P.No.14127/2005 came to be filed. The respondent has submitted that she is the owner of the property bearing New No.4, Old No.5 situated at Ossongnessey Road, Landford Town, Bangalore, measuring about 1642 square feet: after obtaining building plan vide L.P.No.2/1997-1998 dated 27.05.1997 wherein basement, ground, first and 2nd floors were sanctioned by the Palike, she put up construction in accordance with sanctioned plan in the year 1988: in the year 1999, the Accused sold the first floor along with 1/5th undivided share in the land equivalent to 328 square feet and two car parking space in the basement floor to Orchid Voyages Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, it is submitted by the Accused, she approached “Satish’s Swanline”, a firm of Architect, Engineers and Interior designers at Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi for securing a building plan for construction of the 3rd floor. It is also stated that the said Architects were registered Architects with the Palike. It is further submitted that the said Architects prepared the revised plan and submitted the same to the Palike, and having secured the approval, the said Architects passed on the revised sanctioned plan bearing L.P.No.497/1998-1999 dated 20.11.1999 to the Accused, based on which the floor was constructed in the year 2000. 5. It is further narrated in the statement of objections that dispute arose between Orchid Voyages Pvt. Ltd. and the accused with regard to payment of Property Tax, Electricity charges, Water charges etc. It is in this background, as alleged by the Accused, Orchid Voyages Pvt. Ltd. complained to the Palike to initiate action against the Accused alleging that construction made by the Accused was illegal and unauthorized. 6. The Palike initiated action by issuing show cause notice to the Accused. The Accused filed W.P.No.15490/2005 challenging the provisional order issued under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. W.P.No.15490/2005 was disposed on 16.02.2009 directing the Accused to file objections to the provisional order dated 07.04.2005 and further the Palike was directed to consider the objection to be filed by the Accused and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 7. It is urged by the Accused that she filed her objections before the Palike pointing out that she had secured the revised sanctioned plan in L.P.No.497/1998-1999 dated 20.11.1999 and therefore the construction put up on the 3rd floor was duly authorized. 8. 7. It is urged by the Accused that she filed her objections before the Palike pointing out that she had secured the revised sanctioned plan in L.P.No.497/1998-1999 dated 20.11.1999 and therefore the construction put up on the 3rd floor was duly authorized. 8. In the meanwhile Orchid Voyages Pvt. Ltd. filed W.P.No.14127/2005 seeking directions to the Palike authorities to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction put up by the Accused. Orchid Voyages Pvt. Ltd. had filed I.A.No.1/2006 seeking a direction to the Accused and the Palike to produce the original files pertaining to L.P.No.2/1997-1998 dated 29.03.1997 and the revised sanctioned plan L.P.No.497/1998-1999 dated 20.11.1999. The Palike authorities filed their statement of objections, wherein it admitted that it had sanctioned the original plan dated 29.03.1997, but contended that it had not issued the revised sanctioned plan dated 20.11.1999. In this background, it is submitted by the Accused that she produced the revised sanctioned plan, along with statement of objection. At this stage, Orchid Voyages Pvt. Ltd. filed I.A.No.62/2008 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Accused. 9. In the meanwhile, the Palike authorities seem to have confirmed the provisional order by recording a finding that the alleged revised sanctioned plan was a got up document. The Accused has challenged the order of confirmation before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal No.222/2009. On 29.02.2016, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. The order of the KAT is challenged by the Accused by filing W.P.No.37833/2016. 10. The Accused has also filed additional statement of objections reiterating her stand that she had entrusted the responsibility of securing the revised sanctioned plan to “Satish’s Swanline”, registered Architect and the said entrustment is in accordance with law and as required under Clause 3.2 and 3.5 of the building byelaws of the Bruhut Mahanagara Palike Bangalore. The respondent further contends that she has not produced the revised sanctioned plan on her own, but at the instance of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14127/2005. She further contends that she produced the documents, as she believed that it was a genuine document. She further contents that she has produced the document not to mislead the Court or to cause obstruction in the process of justice or with malafide intentions to secure a favourable order. 11. She further contends that she produced the documents, as she believed that it was a genuine document. She further contents that she has produced the document not to mislead the Court or to cause obstruction in the process of justice or with malafide intentions to secure a favourable order. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contents that no fault could be found with the Accused as she believes that the revised sanctioned plan has been secured in accordance with law and the Accused had no reason to believe that registered Architect had given her a bogus document. 12. The matter is now set down for hearing the Accused before framing of charges. 13. Heard Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri R. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for the Accused. 14. It is contended by Sri Nataraj, learned counsel that in the absence of permission from the Advocate General, this Criminal Contempt Petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others { (2005) 1 SCC 254 } and Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another { (2011) 5 SCC 496 } to buttress his contention. 15. In both the matters, the initiation of contempt proceedings were not done suo motu by the High Court. Whereas, in the instant case, we are dealing with a situation, where the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the document produced by the Accused was prima facie a fraudulent document and therefore, directed initiation of contempt proceedings by referring the matter to the Division Bench. 16. In para 23 of Bal Thackrey’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “………. Of course, the Court had the power and jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings suo motu and for that purpose consent of the Advocate General was not necessary. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that the courts normally take suo motu action in rare cases ……….” 17. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Accused is not tenable. 18. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that the courts normally take suo motu action in rare cases ……….” 17. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Accused is not tenable. 18. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that by order dated 11.07.2017, this Court has already formed a prima facie opinion that a case was made out for framing of charges and therefore, we should proceed to frame charges. 19. We notice that by order dated 26.07.2017, the earlier order dated 11.07.2017 and 18.07.2017 are recalled. Therefore, we have proceeded to hear the Accused before framing charges, as contemplated in Clause (ii) and (iii) of Rule 10 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. 20. Sri Nataraj, learned counsel for the Accused reiterates on behalf of the Accused that as the records speak for themselves, the Accused did not voluntarily produce the revised sanctioned plan. It was only at the instance of the writ petitioner, that the Accused was forced to produce the revised sanctioned plan. He further contends that the Accused always believed that the revised sanctioned plan is a genuine document obtained from the competent authority of the Palike, in accordance with law and she had no reason to doubt the genuineness of the document. The learned counsel points out to the seal and signature of the competent authority on the document and asserts that there is no reason to believe the document to be a fraudulent one. It is also pointed out that the Accused has made application before the Palike, under the Right to Information Act, to secure the entire records, leading up to the issuance of the revised sanctioned plan. 21. It is brought to our notice that an appeal has been preferred to the competent authority under the Right to Information Act and the same is pending disposal. It is in this background, the learned counsel for the Accused vehemently contends that this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the revised sanctioned plan is a bogus document. It is further contended that unless there is an enquiry held into this aspect, this Court may not be able to come to the conclusion that the document is a fraudulent one. Hence, he has sought for dropping the contempt proceedings. 22. It is further contended that unless there is an enquiry held into this aspect, this Court may not be able to come to the conclusion that the document is a fraudulent one. Hence, he has sought for dropping the contempt proceedings. 22. Sri Nataraj, learned counsel further urges that since the Accused asserts that the document is a genuine one and having produced it before the Court at the instance of the writ petitioner, it would be unreasonable to hold that the Accused has produced the document either to mislead the Court or to obtain a favorable order. 23. In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409 , it was held, “The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining ‘the jury, the judge and the hangman’ and it is so because the Court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of the court should not be imperiled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice.” 24. The Accused, a middle aged lady, has explained that like any other person she approached a registered Architect to prepare and submit the revised plan for putting up additional floors on the existing building. The byelaws of the Palike also require that the plan should be prepared and submitted through a registered Architect. There is also no reason to disbelieve the version of the Accused that the plan, which came back with the seal and signature of the competent authorities could not be suspected by her to be a created or fraudulent one. The Accused is also on record contending that she produced the document only because she believed that the document was genuine and had she known that it was not genuine, she would not have ventured to produce the same before the Court. 25. We are of the view that there is no intentional or deliberate act on the part of the accused to mislead this Court by producing a fabricated or false document. 26. 25. We are of the view that there is no intentional or deliberate act on the part of the accused to mislead this Court by producing a fabricated or false document. 26. Keeping all the above aspects in mind, this Court is of the opinion that the Accused deserves the benefit of doubt. Though there is a cloud hanging on the veracity of the revised sanctioned plan, unless a proper enquiry is held and it is established that the document is a fraudulent one, at this stage, it will not be reasonable to proceed against the Accused for committing contempt of Court. Therefore, the contempt proceedings are dropped.