1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The present case arises out of a long-drawn intra-family dispute involving allegations of fraudulent deprivation of daughters from ancestral compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation.
The appellant, Kathyayini, is one of five daughters of late K.G. Yellappa Reddy and Smt. Jayalakshmi, who had eight children in total—three sons and five daughters. The parents jointly purchased land measuring 19 guntas in Survey No. 35, Dodda Thogur, Bengaluru, by a registered sale deed dated 17.02.1986. This property was later acquired for Metro expansion, and compensation amounting to approximately Rs. 33 crores was assessed and released.
The appellant alleges that her elder brother, Sudhanva Reddy, along with his two sons (respondent Nos. 1 and 2), fraudulently misappropriated the entire compensation by:
fabricating a false family tree dated 18.01.2011, deliberately omitting all five daughters, and
relying on a partition deed dated 24.03.2005, purportedly allocating the property exclusively among the male lineage.
This facilitated release of the compensation exclusively into bank accounts of the male members.
Upon disclosure by Sudhanva Reddy himself in subsequent proceedings, KIADB halted further transfer and deposited Rs. 5.59 crores before the Trial Court.
The appellant filed two criminal complaints (FIR Nos. 270/2017 and 145/2017), resulting in registration of offences under Sections 120B, 415, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC among others. Meanwhile, parallel civil proceedings for partition and injunction were instituted as O.S. No. 274/2018 and O.S. No. 124/2018.
When the police filed charge sheets and cognizance was taken in C.C. Nos. 892/2021 and 897/2021, respondents moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that the dispute was “purely civil.”
The High Court accepted the plea and quashed the prosecution on 23.11.2023. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
On 14 July 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the criminal proceedings.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The case raised the following legal questions:
Issue 1:
Does the pendency of a civil suit for partition bar continuation of criminal prosecution arising from the same facts?
Issue 2:
Is a prima facie case of conspiracy, cheating and fabrication of documents made out on the basis of the alleged forged family tree and partition deed?
Issue 3:
Whether the High Court correctly exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC while quashing the prosecution at a pre-trial stage?
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
The fabrication of a family tree excluding daughters demonstrates clear dishonest intent.
The alleged partition deed is disputed and untested; its mere registration cannot immunize criminal conduct.
The respondents misappropriated Rs. 27 crores by suppressing legal heirs, thus constituting prima facie cheating and conspiracy.
The pendency of a civil suit does not extinguish criminal liability.
Reliance was placed on K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S., Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, and Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B., affirming the co-existence of civil and criminal remedies.
Respondents’ Arguments
The partition deed bore the genuine thumb impression of the deceased father, as per the Sub-Registrar’s statement.
Hence no forgery of document could be alleged.
The dispute was essentially civil in nature concerning inheritance, already agitated in civil court.
Parallel prosecution would be “abuse of process” under Section 482 CrPC.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court undertook a doctrinal examination of the co-existence of civil and criminal remedies.
(a) Civil and Criminal Law Not Mutually Exclusive
Relying on earlier three-judge and two-judge bench decisions, the Court reiterated settled law that:
“Pendency of a civil proceeding is no justification for quashing a criminal case if the ingredients of a cognizable offence are made out.”
Cited precedents included:
K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. (2020) 14 SCC 552
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 370
Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. (2002) 1 SCC 555
(b) Prima Facie Fraud Established
The Court held that suppressing the existence of five daughters in the family tree to wrongfully secure financial gain clearly attracts Sections 415 and 420 IPC. Further:
The Sub-Registrar’s statement was untested evidence, not cross-examined, and therefore unreliable at a quashing stage.
Questions about authenticity of documents can only be adjudicated at trial, not pre-trial.
(c) Improper Exercise of Section 482 CrPC
The High Court pre-judged factual disputes and entered into appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under the limited jurisdiction of Section 482.
The Supreme Court thus stressed that criminal prosecution must proceed to trial to determine culpability.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court held that:
There exists a prima facie case of conspiracy and cheating against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
The High Court erred in quashing the prosecution.
Pending civil proceedings do not bar criminal trial when dishonest intention and fraudulent acts are alleged.
The order of the High Court dated 23.11.2023 was set aside.
The Trial Court was directed to continue with the criminal proceedings to their logical conclusion.
FAQs:
1. Can criminal proceedings continue even if a civil suit on the same dispute is already pending?
Yes. Indian law allows civil and criminal actions to run simultaneously. A civil suit does not extinguish criminal liability where fraud, forgery or cheating is alleged.
2. What is the test for quashing a criminal case under Section 482 CrPC?
The court must see whether a prima facie offence is disclosed. It cannot assess evidence or conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing.
3. Is fabrication of a family tree treated as cheating or only a civil wrong?
Where such fabrication is used to unlawfully obtain property or money and exclude rightful heirs, it constitutes a criminal offence.
4. Does registration of a document automatically prove its genuineness?
No. Even a registered deed can be challenged for fraud or coercion. Its validity is determined during trial and not at the quashing stage.
5. Why are civil and criminal remedies considered co-extensive?
Because they operate in different domains—civil law compensates the injured party, while criminal law punishes the offender. One does not exclude the other.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.