Criminal Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Of Pending Civil Cases On Same Subject Matter : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of civil disputes between parties does not warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings where a prima facie case is made out.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Respondents under Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation of fraudulently excluding the Appellant and her sisters from the family tree and partition deed, and thereby misappropriating Rs. 33 crore compensation for ancestral land acquired by Bengaluru Metro.

Noting that there exists a prima facie case against the Respondents, and considering the allegations labelled against the Respondents require a full-fledged trial, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath, referring to a catena of decisions, which supported a continuation of the criminal case pending the civil disputes between the same parties on same subject matter, 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. 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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned decision quashing the criminal case against the Respondent was set aside.

Cause Title: KATHYAYINI VERSUS SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv. Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Vishwanath P. Allannavar, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv.