Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 818
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
1
34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.14
14:55:50 IST
Reason:
sons and five daughters. The three sons are Sudhanva
1
IPC.
SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 of 13
2
Criminal Procedure, 1973 . 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 of 13
3
and another , 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.”
4
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another , 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 11 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.
5
State of W.B. and others ,
“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 12 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 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.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
JULY 14, 2025
SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 13 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
1
34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.14
14:55:50 IST
Reason:
sons and five daughters. The three sons are Sudhanva
1
IPC.
SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 of 13
2
Criminal Procedure, 1973 . 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 of 13
3
and another , 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.”
4
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another , 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 11 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.
5
State of W.B. and others ,
“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 12 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 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.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
JULY 14, 2025
SLP (CRL) NO. 1105 OF 2024 Page 13 of 13