Chapter XXVI
Section 345 CrPC: Procedure in certain cases of contempt
New Law Update (2024)
Section 355 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court
Punishment
Simple Imprisonment up to 1 Month(s) + Fine
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.
(2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender as well as the finding and sentence.
(3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 345(1)
This sub-section empowers Civil, Criminal, or Revenue Courts to summarily punish offences like insulting public servants or obstructing public justice (under specific IPC sections) when committed in their direct view. The court can detain the offender and, on the same day, take cognizance, offer an opportunity to show cause, and impose a fine up to two hundred rupees or simple imprisonment up to one month in default.
Section 345(2)
It mandates the Court to meticulously record the facts that constitute the offence, any statement made by the offender, and the final finding and sentence. This ensures transparency and provides a clear record of the summary proceedings and the basis for the punishment.
Landmark Judgements
Sukhdev Singh v. Hon’ble C.J. & Judges of the Pepsu High Court (1954):
This landmark judgment clarified that High Courts, as Courts of Record, possess inherent power to punish for contempt, independent of statutory provisions like Section 345 CrPC. It underscored the vital role of maintaining judicial dignity and authority.
Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1995):
The Supreme Court in this case emphasized the summary nature of proceedings under Section 345 CrPC, reiterating that the specified procedure must be strictly followed for the enumerated offences committed in the court’s presence. It highlighted the necessity of providing a reasonable opportunity to the offender to show cause.
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995):
This ruling stressed the crucial need to adhere to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 345 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that while exercising this summary power, courts must act judiciously, ensuring the offender receives a fair opportunity to explain their conduct and that the facts constituting the offence are duly recorded.