IMPORTANT POINT
Conspiracy and cheating – Pendency of civil proceedings on same subject matter, involving same parties is no justification to quash criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against accused persons.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the order passed by High Court of Karnataka on 23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No. 23106 of 2021, whereby it allowed the Writ Petition preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and quashed the criminal proceedings against them in two complaint cases, C.C. No. 892/2021 and C.C. No. 897/2021 whereby they were charged for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.¹ [IPC]

3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are summarised below:

3.1 The appellant is the daughter of Sri. K.G. Yellappa Reddy and Smt. Jayalakshmi. The couple had eight children- three sons and five daughters. The three sons are Sudhanva Reddy, Guruva Reddy (Dead) and Umedha Reddy. The five daughters are Smt. Lalitha, Smt. Jayashree, Smt. Rita (Dead), Smt. Bhavani and Smt. Kathyayini (present appellant). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Vikram P.S. Reddy are sons of Sudhanva Reddy.

3.2 Appellant’s parents had jointly purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 35, Extent-19 guntas situated at Dodda Thogur in Bengaluru by a registered sale deed dated 17.02.1986. Her father K.G. Yellappa Reddy was the only son of late Gurappa Reddy and he purchased the above property from the sale of certain ancestral properties. Appellant’s parents are no more. The above land of an extent of 19 guntas was acquired by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited and a total compensation of Rs. 33,00,00,000/- (Rupees thirty-three crores only) was awarded and disbursed. The appellant was under a bonafide belief that compensation amount would be for the whole family and equitably disbursed among all the eight children of K.G. Yellappa Reddy and Smt. Jayalakshmi.

3.3 However, the appellant was shocked to know that her elder brother-Sudhanva Reddy and his two sons, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, hatched a criminal conspiracy by preparing false and incorrect papers in order to deprive her of her legitimate share. They created a false and wrong family tree dated 18.01.2011 by bribing the village accountant, Narasimhaiah. The family tree reflected as if appellant’s parents had only three sons i.e. Sudhanva Reddy, Guruva Reddy and Umedha Reddy. The five daughters of Yellappa Reddy, including the appellant, were not shown in the family tree. The village accountant allegedly did not conduct any inquiry before issuing the family tree.

3.4 Further, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 created an allegedly fraudulent partition deed dated 24.03.2005 with respect to the said land. In this wrongful act, they were abetted by appellant’s brothers Guruva Reddy and Umedha Reddy. It appears from the partition deed that K.G. Yellappa Reddy divided the land in three equal parts and bequeathed it to Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Vikram P.S. Reddy, Guruva Reddy and Umedha Reddy.

3.5 Based on the partition deed, the brothers of appellant have claimed the compensation awarded by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited. The appellant states that in the partition deed there was a reference to the five daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, but the officials of the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited did not ask for a proper family tree and released a sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and eighty lakhs only) to appellant’s brothers. The appellant further claims that the properties of the family were never partitioned, and since she was not a party to the partition, the partition deed is not binding on her. She claims that all the eight children of her parents were entitled to 1/8th share in the aforesaid compensation and all other properties of her parents.

3.6 Meanwhile, appellant’s eldest brother Sudhanva Reddy had many wives and in order to avoid multiple claims, he had divided his claim over the property in favour of his first wife Latha’s sons, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. However, when demand drafts were received by these two sons, they refused to part with the money wi