The Supreme Court has held that the 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.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents in two complaint cases registered under Sections 120B, 415, 420, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said,“ We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit.”

Referring to the judgments in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar and another (2020) and Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and others (2002), the Bench said, “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 the present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents.”

Factual Background

The appellant is the daughter of a couple who have eight children- three sons and five daughters. The three sons are Sudhanva Reddy, Guruva Reddy (Dead) and Umedha Reddy. The five daughters are Lalitha, Smt. Jayashree, Rita (Dead), Bhavani and Kathyayini (present appellant). Respondents, namely Sidharth P.S.Reddy and Vikram P.S.Reddy, are sons of Sudhanva. Appellant’s parents had jointly purchased land by a registered sale deed. 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 crore was awarded and disbursed. The appellant equitably disbursed the compensation among the eight children.

However, the appellant got to know that her elder brother, Sudhanva Reddy and his two sons, who are the respondents, 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 by bribing the village accountant. Based on the partition deed, the brothers of the appellant claimed the compensation. Based on the appellant’s complaint, the cases came to be registered.

During the proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Trial Court that the appellant and her sister had jointly filed a civil suit for partition by metes and bounds and separate possession of the properties belonging to the family. In 2021, a Writ Petition for quashing the charge sheet and the order taking cognisance was allowed. The High Court took note of the fact that the suit for partition was already pending, where the compensation determined by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited was secured. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and cheating existed against the respondents. It appeared to the Bench that they, along with their uncles, attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to gain all the monetary award for the land in question, bypassing the appellant and her sisters. They succeeded in their plan until Sudhanva Reddy revealed it to the authorities in a letter.

The Bench noticed that the High Court could not find any justification to deny that the 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 the 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 the genuineness of both the documents is put to trial”, it said.

The Bench further held that no bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that a prima facie case exists against the respondents. “Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G.Yellappa Reddy, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question”, it said.

It was also noticed that the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirmed the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggested that a criminal trial was necessary to ensure justice to the appellant.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the Trial Court to continue its proceedings against the respondents.

Cause Title: Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 818)

Click here to read/download Judgment


Supreme CourtJustice Vikram NathJustice Prasanna B. Varale

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.