LexKATHYAYINI versus SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 463 : 2025 INSC 818 Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2956 of 2025) 14 July 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against respondent nos.1 and 2 in two complaint cases whereby they were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of Penal Code, 1860. Whether a prima facie case exists against the respondents. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 – Allegation that respondent nos.1 and 2, along with their uncles, have attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to gain all the monetary award for a land bypassing the appellant and her sisters – Two complaint cases – Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court and the criminal proceedings against them in both the complaint cases, whereby they were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of IPC, were quashed – Correctness: Held: It is clear from the facts that a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and cheating exists against respondent nos.1 and 2 – The High Court could not find any justification to deny that respondents misrepresented the family tree – The Court itself has acknowledged that respondents were bound to disclose the names of daughters of KGY in the family tree – Considering the fact that both the partition deed and the family tree were used in gaining the monetary compensation awarded for the land, it is necessary that genuineness of both the documents is put to trial – As far as, the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit is concerned, no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit – The pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused * Author 464 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports persons – Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of KGY, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of KGY, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question – Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the motive of respondents – All the above factors suggest that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant – Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – The Trial Court directed to continue its proceedings against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance to law. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 23, 24] Case Law Cited K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and Another (2020) 14 SCC 552; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another [1985] SCR 3 191 : (1985) 2 SCC 370; Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and Others [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 284 : (2002) 1 SCC 555 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Criminal conspiracy; Cheating; Forged family tree; Partition deed; Monetary award; Non-disclosure of family; Genuineness of documents; Monetary compensation; Pendency of civil proceedings; Criminal proceedings; Distribution of compensation. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2956 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2023 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 23106 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Vibhav Srivastava, Sharad Kumar Puri, Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Utkarsh Pratap, Ms. Arunima Das, Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Mrs. Priya Puri. [2025] 7 S.C.R. 465 Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. Advs. for the Respondents: Nikhil Rohatgi, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Shashank Khurana, Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, V. N. Raghupathy, Vishwanath P. Allannavar, Ms. Mythili S, Md. Apzal Ansari, Nikhil Majithia, Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Neeleshwar Pavani. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal assails the order passed by High Court of Karnataka on 23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.23106 of 2021, whereby it allowed the Writ Petition preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.