Summary of Judgment Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.

Related Law:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 376, 354-A, 506 – Rape, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482 – Quashing of FIRs)

Citation: 2025 INSC 818
Case Title: Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No.: 2956 of 2025 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 1105 of 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Judgment: 14th July 2025

Background

1. Dispute Origin:
   The appellant, Kathyayini, challenged the quashing of criminal proceedings by the Karnataka High Court against her nephews (Respondents 1 & 2) for allegedly fabricating a family tree and partition deed to exclude her and her sisters from a ₹33 crore land compensation awarded by Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation.
   The disputed land was jointly owned by her deceased parents, with eight children (three sons, five daughters). Respondents, sons of her eldest brother, created documents showing only male heirs as beneficiaries.

2. Legal Proceedings:
   FIRs Registered (2017): For offences under Sections 120B, 415, 420, 468, 471 IPC (criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery).
   High Court’s Order (2023): Quashed proceedings, citing no prima facie case and pending civil suits for partition.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings despite prima facie evidence of forgery and cheating.

2. Whether pendency of civil suits bars parallel criminal proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Decision

1. Prima Facie Case Established:
   Forgery & Misrepresentation: Respondents deliberately excluded daughters from the family tree and partition deed to claim compensation fraudulently.
   Sub-Registrar’s Testimony Flawed: High Court wrongly relied on uncross-examined statements to validate the partition deed.

2. Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings:
   No Legal Bar: Citing precedents (K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar, Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar), the Court held that criminal proceedings can proceed independently of civil suits if offences are made out.
   Purpose Distinguished: Civil suits address property rights; criminal trials punish fraud and forgery.

3. Directions:
   Revival of Criminal Case: Trial Court to continue proceedings against Respondents 1 & 2.
   Compensation Safeguarded: ₹27 crore already disbursed to respondents remains subject to trial outcomes.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and reinstating criminal proceedings.

• Key Takeaways:
  Fraudulent exclusion of legal heirs warrants criminal trial.
  Civil suits do not impede criminal prosecution for distinct offences like forgery and cheating.

Final Direction: Trial Court to expedite proceedings.