Scope of prosecution notice must match prior judicial direction; contempt need not proceed where criminal prosecution is already underway.

A later notice to prosecute must remain confined to the offences authorised by the earlier judicial direction and cannot be expanded to include additional offences. On that basis, the Bombay HC restricted the prosecution notice to the offences under Sections 193, 209, 210 and 468 read with 471 of the Indian Penal Code, while recognising that the alleged conduct involved serious forgery-related wrongdoing. The Court also held that a separate contempt proceeding was unnecessary where criminal prosecution was already being set in motion, and it discharged the contempt notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice to prosecute should be confined to the offences indicated in the earlier judicial direction, and (ii) whether a separate contempt action was required to be pursued.

Issue (i): Whether the notice to prosecute should be confined to the offences indicated in the earlier judicial direction

Analysis: The prosecution notice had to conform to the terms of the earlier direction and could not travel beyond the offences specifically mentioned therein. Where the later notice included additional offences not covered by that direction, it was necessary to restrict the operation of the notice to the authorised offences only. The Court also accepted that the conduct complained of disclosed serious forgery-related wrongdoing.

Conclusion: The prosecution notice was made absolute only in respect of the offences specifically directed earlier, namely the offences under Sections 193, 209, 210 and 468 read with 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (ii): Whether a separate contempt action was required to be pursued

Analysis: Although the conduct was considered capable of amounting to contempt, the Court declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction because prosecution in the criminal court was being set in motion. In that circumstance, a parallel contempt proceeding was treated as unnecessary.

Conclusion: The contempt notice was discharged.

Final Conclusion: The Court confined the criminal prosecution to the authorised offences and declined to proceed further in contempt, thereby granting only partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: When a later show-cause notice for prosecution exceeds the scope of the earlier judicial direction, the notice must be restricted to the offences actually authorised, and contempt jurisdiction need not be exercised where criminal prosecution is being pursued.

---