The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on July 14, 2025, has ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil suit concerning the same subject matter is pending, provided a prima facie criminal case is established against the accused. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy against two individuals in a property dispute. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the criminal case.
The appeal was filed by Ms. Kathyayini, challenging the High Court’s order dated November 23, 2023, which had quashed the criminal proceedings against her nephews, Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Vikram P.S. Reddy, under Sections 120B, 415, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background of the Case
The dispute originates from a property jointly purchased by the appellant’s parents, K.G. Yellappa Reddy and Smt. Jayalakshmi. The couple had eight children: three sons and five daughters. The land, measuring 19 guntas in Dodda Thogur, Bengaluru, was acquired by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, which awarded a total compensation of Rs. 33 crores.
The appellant, Ms. Kathyayini, alleged that her elder brother, Sudhanva Reddy, and his sons (the respondents, Sidharth and Vikram Reddy) engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deprive the five daughters of their legitimate share in the compensation. According to the complaint, they created a false family tree dated January 18, 2011, which omitted the names of the five daughters and only showed the three sons.
Furthermore, it was alleged that a fraudulent partition deed dated March 24, 2005, was created, showing that K.G. Yellappa Reddy had divided the property among his three sons and grandsons. Based on these documents, the male heirs claimed the compensation.
The matter came to light when Sudhanva Reddy, following a dispute with his own sons over the received compensation, wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, stating that the partition deed was fabricated. This led the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) to halt further payments.
Following this, the appellant filed a police complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 270/2017. A separate complaint was filed jointly by the appellant and her sister, Smt. Jayashree. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the trial court took cognizance of the offences, registering C.C. No. 892/2021 and C.C. No. 897/2021. Meanwhile, the appellant and her sister also filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 274/2018) for partition and another suit (O.S. No. 124 of 2018) for an injunction against the withdrawal of the compensation amount.
High Court’s Reasoning
The respondents approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court allowed their petition, primarily on two grounds. First, it relied on a statement from the Sub-Registrar indicating that the thumb impression on the 2005 partition deed was genuinely that of K.G. Yellappa Reddy. Based on this, the High Court concluded that offences of forgery under Sections 468 or 471 of the IPC were not made out.
Second, the High Court observed that while the respondents had misrepresented the family tree, their intent was to align the revenue records with the 2005 partition deed, and this act in itself was not an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Concluding that a civil suit for partition was already pending where the compensation amount was secured, the High Court deemed it appropriate to terminate the criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. The bench held that a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and cheating was clearly evident from the facts. The Court observed, “It appears that they, along with their uncles Guruva Reddy and Umedha Reddy, have attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to gain all the monetary award for land in question bypassing the appellant and her sisters.”
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reliance on the Sub-Registrar’s statement to be erroneous. It noted, “we must note this statement of the Sub-Registrar has not been put to cross examination. It would be unwise to rely on unverified testimony of a Sub-Registrar to ascertain the genuineness of Partition deed.”
The central legal question addressed was whether the pendency of a civil suit could be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings. The Court held unequivocally that it could not. Citing established precedents, the bench made it clear that civil and criminal remedies can run concurrently.
The Court referred to its decision in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S., which held:
“It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.”
The judgment also quoted Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, which distinguished the two remedies:
“The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender… This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer…”
Reiterating the principle laid down in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B., the Court affirmed that the pendency of a civil action in a different court “cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court stated:
“The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents.”
The Court found that the chain of events, from creating an exclusionary family tree to the alleged threats against the appellant, was sufficient to warrant a criminal trial. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to continue the proceedings against respondents Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Vikram P.S. Reddy.
