Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Kathyayini – Appellant
Versus
Sidharth P. S. Reddy – Respondent
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:
3.2 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
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no clear language or references to subsequent judicial treatment that suggest any case has been invalidated or discredited. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no cases are categorized as bad law.
[cases indicating reaffirmation or consistent treatment:]
Jagadish Devadas Anchan, S/O Late Devadas Chandrashekar Anchan vs State Of Karnataka Through Mulky Police Station Represented By State Public Prosecutor - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 41: dual remedies - Court reaffirmed that civil and criminal remedies can coexist.
SHRI JAGADISH DEVADAS ANCHAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16966: dual remedies - Court reaffirmed that civil and criminal remedies can coexist.
*Explanation:* Both cases explicitly state that the courts reaffirmed the principle, suggesting consistent judicial treatment without any indication of reversal or disapproval.
[cases emphasizing the need for criminal investigations or procedures:]
DEEPAK A vs STATE BY THILAKANAGAR POLICE STATION - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24431: Fraudulent Documents - Emphasized the need for criminal investigations in cases of forgery despite concurrent civil suits.
C. S. Prasad VS C. Satyakumar - 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 42: In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. ... - Clarified that the pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal proceedings.
K. Jagadish VS Udaya Kumar G. S. - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 434: Highlighted the distinction between civil and criminal remedies and the importance of allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
Kamaladevi Agarwal VS State Of W. B. - 2001 7 Supreme 627: Held that the High Court was not justified in quashing criminal proceedings due to pending civil suits.
*Explanation:* These cases collectively reinforce the principle that criminal proceedings can and should continue independently of civil cases, indicating a consistent judicial stance.
SHRI JAGADISH DEVADAS ANCHAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18141: dual remedies - Mentions a case of Kathyayini but does not specify subsequent treatment or judicial stance beyond noting the case.
DEEPAK A vs STATE BY THILAKANAGAR POLICE STATION - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24431: While it emphasizes criminal investigations, there is no indication it has been overruled or criticized.
The references to Kathyayini in multiple cases do not specify if the case has been overruled or questioned; the treatment remains implied as consistent.
Note: The list does not contain explicit references or language indicating that any case has been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The treatment patterns suggest a consistent judicial approach to the principles discussed, especially regarding dual remedies and criminal proceedings.
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 p....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when disputes are civil in nature, and complaints lacking essential criminal elements should be quashed to prevent abuse of legal processes.
Criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC cannot proceed concurrently with civil suits regarding property disputes, highlighting the need for civil resolution of complex property rights....
Criminal liability can arise from civil disputes; allegations of fraud and conspiracy must be examined despite ongoing civil litigation.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil in nature, and the High Court has the authority to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.
At the discharge stage, the court must assume the prosecution's materials are true and evaluate if they disclose all elements of the alleged offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
