KATHYAYINIversusSIDHARTH P.S. REDDY & ORS.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 463 : 2025 INSC 818

                               Kathyayini
                                    v.
                       Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2956 of 2025)
                                  14 July 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against respondent
       nos.1 and 2 in two complaint cases whereby they were charged for
       offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of Penal Code,
       1860. Whether a prima facie case exists against the respondents.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 – Allegation that
       respondent nos.1 and 2, along with their uncles, 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
       a land bypassing the appellant and her sisters – Two complaint
       cases – Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petition, which was
       allowed by the High Court and the criminal proceedings against
       them in both the complaint cases, whereby they were charged
       for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of IPC,
       were quashed – Correctness:
       Held: It is clear from the facts that a prima facie case for
       criminal conspiracy and cheating exists against respondent nos.1
       and 2 – The 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 KGY 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
       genuineness of both the documents is put to trial – As far as, the
       issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit
       is concerned, no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences
       punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the
       civil suit – 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
* Author
464                                                              [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       persons – Considering the long chain of events from creation of
       family tree excluding the daughters of KGY, partition deed among
       only the sons and grandsons of KGY, 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 – Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her
       sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the
       motive of respondents – All the above factors suggest that a criminal
       trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant – Therefore,
       the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – The Trial
       Court directed to continue its proceedings against respondent Nos.1
       and 2 in accordance to law. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 23, 24]

                                Case Law Cited
       K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and Another (2020) 14 SCC
       552; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another [1985] SCR 3
       191 : (1985) 2 SCC 370; Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and
       Others [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 284 : (2002) 1 SCC 555 – relied on.

                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860.

                                List of Keywords
       Criminal conspiracy; Cheating; Forged family tree; Partition
       deed; Monetary award; Non-disclosure of family; Genuineness of
       documents; Monetary compensation; Pendency of civil proceedings;
       Criminal proceedings; Distribution of compensation.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       2956 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2023 of the High Court
       of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 23106 of 2021

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Vibhav Srivastava, Sharad
       Kumar Puri, Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Utkarsh Pratap, Ms. Arunima Das,
       Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Mrs. Priya Puri.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            465

                    Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.


      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Nikhil Rohatgi, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Shashank Khurana,
      Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, V. N. Raghupathy, Vishwanath P. Allannavar,
      Ms. Mythili S, Md. Apzal Ansari, Nikhil Majithia, Rishi Kumar Singh
      Gautam, Neeleshwar Pavani.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  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
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


1    IPC.
466                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            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.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         467

                    Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.


     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 with their father. Prajwal Reddy, one of
         the sons of Sudhanva Reddy from his second wife-Pushpa filed
         a civil suit being O.S.No.714/2017 against Sudhanva Reddy,
         claiming his share. As Sudhanva Reddy has not received any
         share of money from his two sons from the other wife, he
         revealed the truth about the falsity of the partition deed dated
         24.03.2005. He also said that he had given a letter to the
         Managing Director of Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited
         stating that the partition deed was fabricated by Guruva Reddy,
         Umedha Reddy, Sidharth P.S.Reddy and Vikram Reddy. Due to
         this letter given by Sudhanva Reddy, the Karnataka Industrial
         Area Development Board (“KIADB”) stopped the payment of
         further amount and deposited Rs. 5,59,000,00/- (Rupees five
         crore fifty nine lakhs only) with the Trial Court. However, till now
         KIADB has released total Rs. 27 crores as compensation and
         it has been credited to the accounts of Sidharth P.S.Reddy,
         Vikram P.S.Reddy, Umedha Reddy and Ashok Reddy.
4.   The appellant came to know of the disbursement on 06.10.2017
     whereupon she questioned her brothers about their fraudulent
     acts. Upon being confronted, the brothers allegedly abused her
     and threatened to eliminate her if any further action was taken.
     The appellant registered a complaint before police on 14.11.2017.
     Based on her complaint the police registered FIR No. 270/2017 on
     18.11.2017 under Sections 506, 34, 471, 420, 474, 120-B, 468, 464
     read with Section 34 of IPC against Sudhanva Reddy, Narsimhaiah
     (the village accountant) and Sidharth Reddy, stating that Sudhanva
     Reddy and his two sons colluded with village accountant to create a
     fabricated family tree and a partition deed. On the strength of these
     documents, they were successful in appropriating substantial amount
     of compensation of Rs. 33 Crores depriving the sisters of their share.
5.   Another complaint was lodged jointly by appellant and Smt. Jayshree,
     another daughter of K.G.Yellappa Reddy on 20.11.2017, alleging the
     same allegations, based upon which, a case being Cr.No.145/2017
468                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       was registered against Sudhanva Reddy, Narsimhaiah, Sidharth
       Reddy and Vikram Reddy.
6.     During the course of investigation, the City Crime Branch of Bangalore
       police seized the bank accounts of Ashok Reddy, Sidharth P.S. Reddy,
       Vikram P.S.Reddy and Umedha Reddy by exercising the power
       conferred under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. This
       seizure of the accounts was challenged by all four accused persons
       by filing applications under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC, requesting
       to de-freeze their respective bank accounts. On 24.03.2018, the
       Trial Court rejected their applications. It reasoned that the amount
       of compensation credited to the accounts of applicants is directly
       involved in the criminal case registered against them.
7.     Aggrieved by this order, all four accused preferred Criminal Revision
       petitions before Sessions Court. Their petitions were dismissed by
       Sessions Court by order dated 03.12.2018.
8.     Aggrieved by the order of Sessions Court all four accused persons
       preferred Criminal Petition Nos. 34/2019, 35/2019, 36/2019 and
       37/2019 before the Hight Court. The High Court dismissed these
       petitions on 07.04.2021. It held that bank accounts fall within
       the meaning of ‘property’ under Section 102(1) of CrPC and the
       Investigating Officer is empowered to seize any such Bank account
       in which he notices suspicion about commission of an offence. The
       petitioners therein had pointed out non-compliance of a requirement
       of submission of report to Magistrate by the Investigating Officer
       immediately after freezing of the Bank accounts. However, the
       High Court held that de-freezing of Bank accounts merely on such
       technical ground may lead to the possibility of accused persons
       siphoning huge amount of funds available in their accounts. Thus,
       it concluded that mere non-compliance of submission of report as
       required under Section 102(3) of CrPC would not vitiate the seizure.
9.     Aggrieved by this order of the High Court, Respondents preferred
       Special Leave Petitions No. 7532-7533 before this Court, which were
       dismissed on 08.10.2021.
10. Meanwhile, police filed a charge sheet in both the FIRs in Crime No.
    270/2017 and Crime No. 145/2017 on 12.01.2021 for the offences


2    CrPC
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        469

                    Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.


     under Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against
     Accused No.1-Sudhanva Reddy (deceased), Accused No. 2- Sidharth
     Reddy, Accused No. 3 Vikram Reddy, Accused No. 4- Umedha Reddy
     and Accused No. 5-Ashok Reddy. The Trial Court on 13.01.2021
     took cognizance in both the criminal complaints and registered
     C.C.No.892/2021 and C.C.No.897/2021 for the aforesaid offences
     and issued summons to the accused persons, including respondent
     Nos. 1 and 2.
11. On 28.08.2021 a Memorandum of Understanding was executed
    between Umedha Reddy, Ashok Reddy and the appellant. On the
    basis of the compromise, the proceedings as against Umedha Reddy
    and Ashok Reddy were quashed.
12. During the course of the proceedings, it was brought to the notice of
    the Trial Court that the appellant and her sister Smt. Jayshree, have
    jointly filed a civil suit being O.S.No.274/2018 for partition by metes
    and bounds and separate possession of the properties belonging to
    the family. They are also seeking reliefs of partition of equal share of
    compensation, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
    transferring or creating any charges on suit property and declaration
    that the Partition deed dated 24.03.2005 is void. Further, another civil
    suit being O.S.No. 124 of 2018 has been filed by Smt. Jayashree
    seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants, including the
    respondents herein, from operating and withdrawing the amount
    under compensation award deposited in their bank accounts.
13. In December 2021, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Writ Petition for
    quashing of the charge sheet and of the order taking cognizance
    dated 13.01.2021. The High Court, by the Impugned order, allowed
    the Writ Petition and thereby quashed the prosecution of Respondents
    Nos. 1 and 2 in both the complaint cases.
14. The High Court noted that the statement of the Sub-Registrar makes
    it certain that the thumb impression found on the partition deed dated
    24.03.2005 was the thumb impression of Yellappa Reddy. Therefore,
    an offence as alleged either under Sections 468 or 471 IPC is not
    made out. Further, the partition deed referred above was drawn up
    on 24.03.2005 and the respondents, in an effort to get their names
    entered in the revenue records, have brought up a family tree dated
    18.01.2011 in line with the partition deed dated 24.03.2005. The High
470                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Court noted that, no doubt when respondents had obtained the family
       tree, they were bound to disclose the names of daughters of late
       Yellappa Reddy. But since the attempt by the respondents was to get
       their names entered in the revenue records based on the partition
       deed dated 24.03.2005, it cannot be held that the respondents had
       committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. It may be that they
       had misrepresented about the family of Yellappa Reddy but that in
       itself was not an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The High
       Court thus concluded that, considering the suit for partition is already
       pending where the compensation determined by the Bengaluru Metro
       Rail Corporation Limited, is secured, it is appropriate that criminal
       proceedings initiated against the respondents is put to an end.
15. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, the
    complainant-appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.
16. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsels for both the
    sides and have perused the material on record.
17. It is clear from the facts that a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy
    and cheating exists against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 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. They succeeded
    in their plan until Sudhanva Reddy revealed it to the authorities by a
    letter. The High Court has erroneously relied upon the statement of
    Sub-Registrar who stated that partition deed dated 24.03.2005 was
    presented for registration on 26.03.2005 and due to health reasons
    concerning K.G.Yellappa Reddy, his thumb impressions were secured
    at his house in presence of the Sub-Registrar. However, 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
    High Court erred in heavily relying on his statement to conclude that
    the Partition deed was genuine and thus no offence is made out
    against the respondents under Sections 463 and 464 IPC.
18. Further, the 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 the family
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              471

                    Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.


     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.
19. 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. Learned senior
    counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly placed the relevant
    judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case
    of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another3, this Court
    has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant
    paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below:
            “8. 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.”
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another4, this Court summed
    up the distinction between the two remedies as under :
            “21. … There are a large number of cases where criminal
            law and civil law can run side by side. 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 who
            commits an offence against a person, property or the
            State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is
            deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life.
            This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for
            suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc.
            It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is
            available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The
            two types of actions are quite different in content, scope
            and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the



3   (2020) 14 SCC 552.
4   (1985) 2 SCC 370
472                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the
            stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody,
            that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render
            the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive.
            To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is
            kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him
            can be taken as no offence is committed is to override
            and distort the real intent of the law.”
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State
    of W.B. and others5,
            “17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the
            contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not
            justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the
            appellant against the respondents. We are also not
            impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was
            pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified
            to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the
            basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded
            with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed
            under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency
            of a civil action in a different court even though higher in
            status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing
            of the proceedings.”
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court in K. Jagadish
    (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to quash the criminal
    proceedings and held that criminal proceedings shall continue to
    its logical end.
23. 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.
    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


5   (2002)1 SCC 555
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       473

                    Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.


     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. Further, the alleged threat to appellant
     and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further
     affirms the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest
     that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant.
24. Therefore, we set aside the Impugned order of High Court dated
    23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.23106 of 2021. Accordingly, we direct
    the Trial Court to continue its proceedings against respondent Nos. 1
    and 2 in accordance to law.
25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed as above.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan