2025 INSC 818 SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 1 of 13

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.1105 OF 2024 )

KATHYAYINI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

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

1

IPC.

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 2 of 13

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

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 3 of 13

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

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 4 of 13

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 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.

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 5 of 13

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 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

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 6 of 13

Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. 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

2

CrPC

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 7 of 13

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 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

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 8 of 13

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 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

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 9 of 13

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

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 10 of 13

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 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.

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 11 of 13

and another

3, 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 another

4

, 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 stand that if the

husband dishonestly misappropriates the

stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his

custody, that would bar prosecution under

3

(2020) 14 SCC 552.

4

(1985) 2 SCC 370

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 12 of 13

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 others

5

,

“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

5

(2002)1 SCC 555

SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 13 of 13

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 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 motiv e 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.

……………………………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI

JULY 14, 2025