1. Fraudulent family tree and partition deed used to misappropriate land compensation — Criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 415, 420, IPC — Appeal against quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1036
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Kathyayini – Appellant
Versus
Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2956 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1105 of 2024]
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv. Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Vishwanath P. Allannavar, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv. Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Vishwanath P. Allannavar, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv.
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.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Conspiracy and cheating – Common intention – No such bar exists against prosecution if offences punishable under criminal law are made out against parties to civil suit – 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 – In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against respondents – Criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to appellant – Impugned order of High Court in Writ Petition set aside – Trial Court directed to continue its proceedings against respondents in accordance with law. (Paras 19, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal assails order passed by High Court of Karnataka on 23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No. 23106 of 2021, whereby it allowed Writ Petition preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and quashed criminal proceedings against them in two complaint cases, whereby they were charged for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Facts of the case:
High Court could not find any justification to deny that respondents misrepresented the family tree. The Court itself has acknowledged that respondents were bound to disclose the names of daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy and Jayalakshmi in family tree. Considering the fact that both the partition deed and the family tree were used in gaining the monetary compensation awarded for the land, it is necessary that genuineness of both the documents is put to trial.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether the genuineness of a partition deed and the pendency of a civil suit for partition bar criminal prosecution for cheating and conspiracy. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. Reliance on uncross-examined testimony to determine document genuineness is improper — Misrepresentation of family tree indicates fraudulent intent to deprive legal heirs of compensation. (Para 17 , 18 )
4. Pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case for criminal offences is established. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Trial Court directed to continue criminal proceedings against respondents in accordance with law. (Para 24 , 25 )
6. Does the pendency of a civil suit bar criminal prosecution for the same set of facts?
No. Criminal and civil remedies are coextensive and not mutually exclusive. The pendency of a civil action is not a justification for quashing criminal proceedings if a prima facie case for criminal offences is made out. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
7. Can a court rely on uncross-examined testimony to determine the genuineness of a document in a quashing petition?
No. It is unwise to rely on unverified testimony that has not been subjected to cross-examination to ascertain the genuineness of a document, as such evidence is not sufficiently verified. (Para 17 )
8. Does misrepresenting a family tree to obtain land compensation constitute a criminal offence?
Yes. If a family tree is intentionally misrepresented to exclude legal heirs for the purpose of gaining monetary compensation, it supports a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and cheating. (Para 17 , 18 , 23 )
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
