Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 39
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 397 OF 2025]
C.S. PRASAD … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024
1
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of
2
2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ,
whereby the High Court had proceeded to quash the proceedings against
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229
of 2021 registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and
3
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing
Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.01.09
11:22:02 IST
Reason:
1
‘High Court’
2
‘Cr.PC’
3
‘IPC’
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 1 of 15
3. The appellant herein is Dr. C.S. Prasad, the de-facto complainant,
whereas the accused persons are Dr. C. Satyakumar, Dr. Swarnakumari (wife
of Dr. C. Satyakumar) and Shri S. Ravi Chitturi (their son), who are
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in this Appeal. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori, who
is respondent No. 5 herein, is the nephew of respondent No. 1 and the
appellant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The record discloses that the present criminal proceedings arise out of
a dispute rooted in the execution of three registered settlement deeds
concerning valuable immovable properties situated in Chennai, originally
owned by Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi.
The couple had three sons, namely, respondent No. 1 (elder son), the
appellant herein, and Dr. C. Ranga Rao, who predeceased them in the year
2011. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori is the son of the predeceased Dr. C. Ranga Rao,
and nephew of respondent No. 1 and the appellant.
5. During their lifetime, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and Late Smt. C.
Lakshmi Devi are said to have executed three registered settlement deeds in
respect of different properties. The first settlement deed was executed on
31.12.2010 bearing Document No. 2701 of 2010, settling property bearing
R.S. Nos. 376/2 and 376/3 Part, Egmore village, Door No. 192, Poonamallee
High Road, Chennai, in favour of their elder son, respondent No. 1. Thereafter,
a second settlement deed came to be executed on 14.02.2012, registered as
Document No. 535 of 2012, in respect of Plot No. 2441, T.S. No.384, Block
No.I-D, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Subsequently, a third settlement deed was
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 2 of 15
executed on 30.03.2012, registered as Document No. 707 of 2012, in respect
of Door No.57, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
6. In the interregnum, on 28.03.2012, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana
4
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 1, authorising him
to present documents for registration. The third settlement deed dated
30.03.2012 was accordingly presented for registration through the said PoA
holder. Shortly thereafter, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana passed away on
18.04.2012, followed by the demise of his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi on
22.04.2012.
7. Two years later, in 2014, respondent No. 5 instituted O.S. No. 2190 of
2014 before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
seeking declaration that the three settlement deeds dated 31.12.2010,
14.02.2012 and 30.03.2012 were null and void, along with a prayer for
partition and separate possession of the properties. The appellant was arrayed
as defendant No. 2 in the said suit and had entered appearance. However, the
record reflects that he did not actively contest the proceedings and allowed
the matter to proceed ex parte against him.
8. During the pendency of civil proceedings, the appellant lodged a Police
complaint on 08.01.2020, alleging fraud, impersonation and forgery in the
execution of the settlement deeds. After preliminary inquiry, the Police closed
the complaint on 17.03.2020, treating the dispute to be of a purely civil
nature. Thereafter, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
4
‘PoA’
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 3 of 15
by filing Crl.M.P. No. 13803 of 2021 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. On
12.10.2021, the learned Magistrate directed registration of an FIR. Pursuant
thereto, FIR No. 229 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 came to be registered by the
Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Egmore, Chennai, for offences
under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC against respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 herein and others.
9. Meanwhile, upon completion of the trial in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014, the
Civil Court by judgment dated 24.01.2023 dismissed O.S. No. 2190 of 2014,
upholding the validity of all the three settlement deeds. Aggrieved by the said
decree, respondent No. 5 preferred A.S. No. 403 of 2023 before the High Court.
By interim order dated 26.07.2023, the High Court had granted an order of
injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 restraining alienation of the
properties during the pendency of the appeal.
10. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 229 of 2021, the Police filed a
Final Report (FR-18/2023) dated 11.03.2023 before the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing
Cases, Allikulam, Egmore. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences, and the case was registered as C.C. No. 2 of 2023.
11. Earlier, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Crl.O.P. No. 16932 of 2022
before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR No. 229 of 2021. However,
the said petition was withdrawn on 28.07.2022. After cognizance was taken
on the Final Report, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 again approached the High Court
by filing Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 4 of 15
quashment of the entire criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No. 2 of 2023
arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021.
12. Vide its order dated 22.10.2024, the High Court allowed Crl.O.P. No.
10961 of 2023 and proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.
2 of 2023 qua respondent Nos. 1 to 3, holding inter alia that the ingredients
of the alleged offences in FIR No. 229 of 2021 were not made out and that the
allegations in the complaint amount to giving a civil dispute a criminal color.
The High Court also noted that that the appellant had suppressed material
facts relating to the earlier civil proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 initiated
by respondent No. 5 in which the appellant was also a party. According to the
High Court , all the three settlement deeds were executed during the lifetime
of the original owners and were duly registered in accordance with law and
that their validity had already been tested and upheld in a full-fledged civil
trial by dismissal of O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 and that the appellant, despite
being a party to the said suit, had consciously allowed it to proceed ex parte
against him. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the appellant had
knowledge of the impugned transactions since 2014, yet chose to initiate
criminal proceedings only in 2020, after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
In summation, the High Court was of the view that the continuation of
criminal prosecution against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would amount to misuse
of the criminal justice process.
13. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging
the quashing of proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of
2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 5 of 15
SUBMISSION OF PARTIES
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High Court had
failed to take note of the fact that the PoA executed by Late Dr. C.
Satyanarayana in favour of respondent No. 1 granted only limited authority
for registration of the deeds. However, according to the learned counsel for
the appellant, respondent No. 1 has misused the authority to execute the
settlement deeds in his own favour.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the PoA and the
subsequent settlement deeds are fraudulent documents and are alleged to
have been obtained by deceiving Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana. Learned counsel
further highlights that the High Court had failed to take note of the mental
state of Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana at the time of executing the settlement
deeds.
16. Lastly, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the High Court
had erroneously quashed the proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on
the pretext that the matter was a civil dispute. Learned counsel further
submits that both civil and criminal proceedings can co-exist if the
ingredients of the offence alleged are made out.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has supported
the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing C.C. No. 2 of 2023
arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021. Learned counsel argues that the present
petition is a misuse of criminal process to re-open a family property dispute
that has already been decided in civil proceedings in its judgment dated
24.01.2023 passed in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 6 of 15
18. Learned counsel points out that the appellant had full knowledge of the
transactions since the filing of the said suit, and had deliberately remained
ex parte in the civil proceedings. To supplement, learned counsel further
points out that the complaint dated 08.01.2020 preferred by the appellant
was grossly delayed, and was filed only as a retaliatory measure after the civil
litigation.
19. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that the offences alleged against
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint are not made out and the same was
filed by the appellant only to harass respondent nos. 1 to 3.
ANALYSIS
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the material on record.
21. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the High
Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 1
to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021.
22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is extraordinary in
nature and is to be exercised with great caution. This Court in catena of
judgments has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping the
function of a trial court or conducting a mini-trial when disputed factual
questions attend the maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is
to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained in the FIR,
taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 7 of 15
5
In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others , a Division
Bench of this Court had discussed about the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.PC
as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
5
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 8 of 15
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Furthermore, in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State
6
of Maharashtra and Others , a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held
that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly,
and only where the complaint, even if accepted in full, discloses no offence or
continuation would amount to abuse of process. This Court had issued the
following directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while exercising the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC:
“ Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether
the High Court would be justified in passing an interim
order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to
be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in what circumstances and
whether the High Court would be justified in passing the
order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to
be adopted” during the investigation or till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as
under:
33.1….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
6
(2021) 19 SCC 401
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 9 of 15
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go
on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the
“rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11….
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14….
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make
out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR.
…..”
(emphasis supplied)
24. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section
482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be
more cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High Court
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 10 of 15
exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the
genuineness of the allegations made. The High Court must only consider
whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or
not and must not be concerned with the reliability, sufficiency, or
acceptability of the evidence.
25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that the complaint dated
08.01.2020 made by the appellant contains categorical allegations that
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by abusing the advanced age and medical
vulnerability of the executants, caused the execution and registration of the
three settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, and thereafter used such
documents as genuine for the purpose of deriving proprietary benefits. The
allegations in the complaint also disclose dishonest intention at the inception
of the transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of documents. At
this stage, we must note that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.PC is bound to take the allegations on its face value. Whether
these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly within the
province of the Trial Court.
26. In the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the proceedings
primarily on the ground that the validity of the settlement deeds has been
upheld in the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the view that this
approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from
the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings
does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 11 of 15
7
disclosed. In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others , this Court
had made 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.”
27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed on
different principles. The decree passed by the Civil Court neither records
findings on criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as forgery,
cheating, or use of forged documents. Therefore, civil adjudication cannot
always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of
quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil proceedings have not
attained finality.
28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation
to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot
be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a
criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined
independently. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon
failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.PC. To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit would
encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by
instituting civil proceedings.
29. A further perusal of the impugned order would show that the High
Court has also attached significance to the conduct of the appellant and the
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 (Para 23)
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 12 of 15
delay of almost 6 years on his part in initiation of criminal proceedings
without any plausible explanation. The High Court had noted that the
appellant remained ex parte instead of participating in the civil proceedings
in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 of which he was already a party. Instead, the
appellant had preferred a private complaint suppressing the fact that the
settlement deeds are already a subject matter of the said suit. The High Court
had found this conduct of the appellant to be in favour of respondent Nos. 1
to 3 and had proceeded to quash the proceedings against them. Before we
express our opinion on this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant
observations of the High Court on this aspect:
“8. ……. In the said suit O.S.No.2190 of 2014, the defacto
nd
complainant C.S. Prasad was arrayed as 2 defendant. He
had entered appearance through a counsel, but had not
contested the suit neither he filed statement or adduced
evidence challenging the validity of the registered
documents. He remained exparte. If really he had any
material to establish that he was cheated by his elder
brother by making false documents and forgery, he should
have participated in the suit proceedings or atleast filed
complaint immediately. He had filed a complaint to the
Commissioner of Police only on 08.01.2020 and the same
after enquiry was closed on 17.03.2020 as civil dispute.
When his complaint was closed as dispute is civil in
nature, the suit O.S.No.2190 of 2014 was pending. Hence,
he had all opportunities to file application to set aside the
exparte order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and
participate in the suit where the validity of the 3
settlements deeds were one of the issues under
consideration.
9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding, the
private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C., suppressing the fact that settlement
deeds are subject matter in the pending suit. In this regard
nd
it can be safely presumed that the 2 respondent herein
had knowledge about the settlement deeds if not earlier at
least on the date of receipt of suit summons in
O.S.No.2190 of 2014. Whereas no plausible explanation
placed by him in his complaint for delay of 6 years in filing
the complaint.”
(emphasis supplied)
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 13 of 15
30. We are not impressed with the above findings reached by the High
Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) , this Court had
made it clear that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC,
the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions
of fact or record findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the
above observations of the High Court, we find that the High Court has erred
in law by embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the conduct of the
appellant and credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and
the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself, is never a ground for quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily
explained or whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter
of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for summary
determination by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution
exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations require
adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed
in accordance with law. In the present case, the issues relating to the state of
mind of the executants at the time of execution of the settlement deeds, the
role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the execution and the use of the settlement
deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which
proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require a full-fledged trial on
evidence.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 14 of 15
CONCLUSION
32. In light of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons above, we come
to the following conclusion:
a) The Appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned order of the High Court dated 22.10.2024 passed in
Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 2
of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021 is set aside .
c) C.C. No. 2 of 2023 shall stand restored for trial before the learned
Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial
of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.
33. All contentions of the parties on merit are left open. We make it clear
that none of the observations contained herein shall have a bearing on the
main trial. The Trial Court shall independently arrive at its conclusion based
on the evidence tendered before it.
………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 08, 2026
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 15 of 15
2026 INSC 39
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 397 OF 2025]
C.S. PRASAD … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024
1
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of
2
2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ,
whereby the High Court had proceeded to quash the proceedings against
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229
of 2021 registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and
3
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing
Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.01.09
11:22:02 IST
Reason:
1
‘High Court’
2
‘Cr.PC’
3
‘IPC’
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 1 of 15
3. The appellant herein is Dr. C.S. Prasad, the de-facto complainant,
whereas the accused persons are Dr. C. Satyakumar, Dr. Swarnakumari (wife
of Dr. C. Satyakumar) and Shri S. Ravi Chitturi (their son), who are
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in this Appeal. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori, who
is respondent No. 5 herein, is the nephew of respondent No. 1 and the
appellant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The record discloses that the present criminal proceedings arise out of
a dispute rooted in the execution of three registered settlement deeds
concerning valuable immovable properties situated in Chennai, originally
owned by Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi.
The couple had three sons, namely, respondent No. 1 (elder son), the
appellant herein, and Dr. C. Ranga Rao, who predeceased them in the year
2011. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori is the son of the predeceased Dr. C. Ranga Rao,
and nephew of respondent No. 1 and the appellant.
5. During their lifetime, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and Late Smt. C.
Lakshmi Devi are said to have executed three registered settlement deeds in
respect of different properties. The first settlement deed was executed on
31.12.2010 bearing Document No. 2701 of 2010, settling property bearing
R.S. Nos. 376/2 and 376/3 Part, Egmore village, Door No. 192, Poonamallee
High Road, Chennai, in favour of their elder son, respondent No. 1. Thereafter,
a second settlement deed came to be executed on 14.02.2012, registered as
Document No. 535 of 2012, in respect of Plot No. 2441, T.S. No.384, Block
No.I-D, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Subsequently, a third settlement deed was
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 2 of 15
executed on 30.03.2012, registered as Document No. 707 of 2012, in respect
of Door No.57, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
6. In the interregnum, on 28.03.2012, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana
4
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 1, authorising him
to present documents for registration. The third settlement deed dated
30.03.2012 was accordingly presented for registration through the said PoA
holder. Shortly thereafter, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana passed away on
18.04.2012, followed by the demise of his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi on
22.04.2012.
7. Two years later, in 2014, respondent No. 5 instituted O.S. No. 2190 of
2014 before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
seeking declaration that the three settlement deeds dated 31.12.2010,
14.02.2012 and 30.03.2012 were null and void, along with a prayer for
partition and separate possession of the properties. The appellant was arrayed
as defendant No. 2 in the said suit and had entered appearance. However, the
record reflects that he did not actively contest the proceedings and allowed
the matter to proceed ex parte against him.
8. During the pendency of civil proceedings, the appellant lodged a Police
complaint on 08.01.2020, alleging fraud, impersonation and forgery in the
execution of the settlement deeds. After preliminary inquiry, the Police closed
the complaint on 17.03.2020, treating the dispute to be of a purely civil
nature. Thereafter, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
4
‘PoA’
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 3 of 15
by filing Crl.M.P. No. 13803 of 2021 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. On
12.10.2021, the learned Magistrate directed registration of an FIR. Pursuant
thereto, FIR No. 229 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 came to be registered by the
Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Egmore, Chennai, for offences
under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC against respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 herein and others.
9. Meanwhile, upon completion of the trial in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014, the
Civil Court by judgment dated 24.01.2023 dismissed O.S. No. 2190 of 2014,
upholding the validity of all the three settlement deeds. Aggrieved by the said
decree, respondent No. 5 preferred A.S. No. 403 of 2023 before the High Court.
By interim order dated 26.07.2023, the High Court had granted an order of
injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 restraining alienation of the
properties during the pendency of the appeal.
10. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 229 of 2021, the Police filed a
Final Report (FR-18/2023) dated 11.03.2023 before the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing
Cases, Allikulam, Egmore. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences, and the case was registered as C.C. No. 2 of 2023.
11. Earlier, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Crl.O.P. No. 16932 of 2022
before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR No. 229 of 2021. However,
the said petition was withdrawn on 28.07.2022. After cognizance was taken
on the Final Report, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 again approached the High Court
by filing Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 4 of 15
quashment of the entire criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No. 2 of 2023
arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021.
12. Vide its order dated 22.10.2024, the High Court allowed Crl.O.P. No.
10961 of 2023 and proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.
2 of 2023 qua respondent Nos. 1 to 3, holding inter alia that the ingredients
of the alleged offences in FIR No. 229 of 2021 were not made out and that the
allegations in the complaint amount to giving a civil dispute a criminal color.
The High Court also noted that that the appellant had suppressed material
facts relating to the earlier civil proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 initiated
by respondent No. 5 in which the appellant was also a party. According to the
High Court , all the three settlement deeds were executed during the lifetime
of the original owners and were duly registered in accordance with law and
that their validity had already been tested and upheld in a full-fledged civil
trial by dismissal of O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 and that the appellant, despite
being a party to the said suit, had consciously allowed it to proceed ex parte
against him. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the appellant had
knowledge of the impugned transactions since 2014, yet chose to initiate
criminal proceedings only in 2020, after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
In summation, the High Court was of the view that the continuation of
criminal prosecution against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would amount to misuse
of the criminal justice process.
13. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging
the quashing of proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of
2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 5 of 15
SUBMISSION OF PARTIES
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High Court had
failed to take note of the fact that the PoA executed by Late Dr. C.
Satyanarayana in favour of respondent No. 1 granted only limited authority
for registration of the deeds. However, according to the learned counsel for
the appellant, respondent No. 1 has misused the authority to execute the
settlement deeds in his own favour.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the PoA and the
subsequent settlement deeds are fraudulent documents and are alleged to
have been obtained by deceiving Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana. Learned counsel
further highlights that the High Court had failed to take note of the mental
state of Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana at the time of executing the settlement
deeds.
16. Lastly, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the High Court
had erroneously quashed the proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on
the pretext that the matter was a civil dispute. Learned counsel further
submits that both civil and criminal proceedings can co-exist if the
ingredients of the offence alleged are made out.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has supported
the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing C.C. No. 2 of 2023
arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021. Learned counsel argues that the present
petition is a misuse of criminal process to re-open a family property dispute
that has already been decided in civil proceedings in its judgment dated
24.01.2023 passed in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 6 of 15
18. Learned counsel points out that the appellant had full knowledge of the
transactions since the filing of the said suit, and had deliberately remained
ex parte in the civil proceedings. To supplement, learned counsel further
points out that the complaint dated 08.01.2020 preferred by the appellant
was grossly delayed, and was filed only as a retaliatory measure after the civil
litigation.
19. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that the offences alleged against
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint are not made out and the same was
filed by the appellant only to harass respondent nos. 1 to 3.
ANALYSIS
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the material on record.
21. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the High
Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 1
to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021.
22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is extraordinary in
nature and is to be exercised with great caution. This Court in catena of
judgments has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping the
function of a trial court or conducting a mini-trial when disputed factual
questions attend the maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is
to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained in the FIR,
taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 7 of 15
5
In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others , a Division
Bench of this Court had discussed about the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.PC
as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
5
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 8 of 15
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Furthermore, in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State
6
of Maharashtra and Others , a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held
that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly,
and only where the complaint, even if accepted in full, discloses no offence or
continuation would amount to abuse of process. This Court had issued the
following directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while exercising the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC:
“ Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether
the High Court would be justified in passing an interim
order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to
be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in what circumstances and
whether the High Court would be justified in passing the
order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to
be adopted” during the investigation or till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as
under:
33.1….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
6
(2021) 19 SCC 401
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 9 of 15
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go
on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the
“rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11….
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14….
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make
out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR.
…..”
(emphasis supplied)
24. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section
482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be
more cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High Court
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 10 of 15
exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the
genuineness of the allegations made. The High Court must only consider
whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or
not and must not be concerned with the reliability, sufficiency, or
acceptability of the evidence.
25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that the complaint dated
08.01.2020 made by the appellant contains categorical allegations that
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by abusing the advanced age and medical
vulnerability of the executants, caused the execution and registration of the
three settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, and thereafter used such
documents as genuine for the purpose of deriving proprietary benefits. The
allegations in the complaint also disclose dishonest intention at the inception
of the transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of documents. At
this stage, we must note that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.PC is bound to take the allegations on its face value. Whether
these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly within the
province of the Trial Court.
26. In the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the proceedings
primarily on the ground that the validity of the settlement deeds has been
upheld in the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the view that this
approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from
the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings
does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 11 of 15
7
disclosed. In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others , this Court
had made 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.”
27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed on
different principles. The decree passed by the Civil Court neither records
findings on criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as forgery,
cheating, or use of forged documents. Therefore, civil adjudication cannot
always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of
quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil proceedings have not
attained finality.
28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation
to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot
be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a
criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined
independently. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon
failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.PC. To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit would
encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by
instituting civil proceedings.
29. A further perusal of the impugned order would show that the High
Court has also attached significance to the conduct of the appellant and the
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 (Para 23)
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 12 of 15
delay of almost 6 years on his part in initiation of criminal proceedings
without any plausible explanation. The High Court had noted that the
appellant remained ex parte instead of participating in the civil proceedings
in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 of which he was already a party. Instead, the
appellant had preferred a private complaint suppressing the fact that the
settlement deeds are already a subject matter of the said suit. The High Court
had found this conduct of the appellant to be in favour of respondent Nos. 1
to 3 and had proceeded to quash the proceedings against them. Before we
express our opinion on this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant
observations of the High Court on this aspect:
“8. ……. In the said suit O.S.No.2190 of 2014, the defacto
nd
complainant C.S. Prasad was arrayed as 2 defendant. He
had entered appearance through a counsel, but had not
contested the suit neither he filed statement or adduced
evidence challenging the validity of the registered
documents. He remained exparte. If really he had any
material to establish that he was cheated by his elder
brother by making false documents and forgery, he should
have participated in the suit proceedings or atleast filed
complaint immediately. He had filed a complaint to the
Commissioner of Police only on 08.01.2020 and the same
after enquiry was closed on 17.03.2020 as civil dispute.
When his complaint was closed as dispute is civil in
nature, the suit O.S.No.2190 of 2014 was pending. Hence,
he had all opportunities to file application to set aside the
exparte order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and
participate in the suit where the validity of the 3
settlements deeds were one of the issues under
consideration.
9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding, the
private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C., suppressing the fact that settlement
deeds are subject matter in the pending suit. In this regard
nd
it can be safely presumed that the 2 respondent herein
had knowledge about the settlement deeds if not earlier at
least on the date of receipt of suit summons in
O.S.No.2190 of 2014. Whereas no plausible explanation
placed by him in his complaint for delay of 6 years in filing
the complaint.”
(emphasis supplied)
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 13 of 15
30. We are not impressed with the above findings reached by the High
Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) , this Court had
made it clear that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC,
the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions
of fact or record findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the
above observations of the High Court, we find that the High Court has erred
in law by embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the conduct of the
appellant and credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and
the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself, is never a ground for quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily
explained or whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter
of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for summary
determination by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution
exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations require
adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed
in accordance with law. In the present case, the issues relating to the state of
mind of the executants at the time of execution of the settlement deeds, the
role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the execution and the use of the settlement
deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which
proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require a full-fledged trial on
evidence.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 14 of 15
CONCLUSION
32. In light of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons above, we come
to the following conclusion:
a) The Appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned order of the High Court dated 22.10.2024 passed in
Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 2
of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021 is set aside .
c) C.C. No. 2 of 2023 shall stand restored for trial before the learned
Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial
of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.
33. All contentions of the parties on merit are left open. We make it clear
that none of the observations contained herein shall have a bearing on the
main trial. The Trial Court shall independently arrive at its conclusion based
on the evidence tendered before it.
………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 08, 2026
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 15 of 15