Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings Over Alleged Forged Family Tree and Partition Deed, Rules Civil Suit Is No Bar

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal against a Karnataka High Court order of 23 November 2023 which had quashed criminal proceedings against two brothers who were accused of forging documents to appropriate compensation awarded for ancestral land. The appeal arose from Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1105 of 2024) filed by the complainant-daughter challenging quashing of charge sheets in C.C. Nos. 892/2021 and 897/2021 in which offences under Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC were alleged.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and directed the trial court to continue proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. The bench held that a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and cheating existed and that the pendency of civil suits did not justify quashing of criminal prosecution. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents. Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G.Yellappa Reddy, distribution of 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.” The Court also cautioned that “it would be unwise to rely on unverified testimony of a Sub-Registrar to ascertain the genuineness of Partition deed,” noting that the Sub-Registrar’s statement had not been tested in cross-examination.

Background The dispute arose after ancestral land in Dodda Thogur, Bengaluru (Sy.No.35, extent 19 guntas) purchased by the parents of the appellant was acquired by Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited and compensation of Rs. 33 crore was disbursed. The appellant alleged that her elder brother and his sons hatched a conspiracy by producing a fabricated family tree (dated 18.01.2011) and a partition deed (dated 24.03.2005) that omitted the five daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy and thereby secured the compensation to the exclusion of the sisters. The appellant filed complaints in November 2017; police registered FIRs and the City Crime Branch seized certain bank accounts. Charge sheets were filed on 12 January 2021 and the trial court took cognizance on 13 January 2021, registering criminal complaints C.C. Nos. 892/2021 and 897/2021.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the charge sheets by way of writ petitions before the High Court which allowed the petitions and quashed proceedings against them, accepting the Sub-Registrar’s account that the partition deed bore the thumb impression of K.G. Yellappa Reddy and concluding that offences under Sections 463/464/471 IPC were not made out. The High Court further observed that while respondents might have misrepresented family details in revenue records, that alone did not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC.

The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed precedents including K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S., Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B., and held that criminal and civil remedies could run concurrently. Applying those principles to the facts, the Court found sufficient material for a trial on allegations of fabrication of documents, misrepresentation and threats to the complainant and her sisters. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the criminal trial proceed; no other interim orders were granted beyond continuation of proceedings.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 818 Case Title: Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Counsel (mentioned) For the Respondent(s): (Names of counsels not specified in judgment)