C.S. Prasad vs C.Satyakumar

2026 INSC 39 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2026 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 397 OF 2025]

C.S. PRASAD … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras1 in Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of

2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732,

whereby the High Court had proceeded to quash the proceedings against

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229

of 2021 registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 on the file of the learned Special

Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing

Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MINI Date: 2026.01.09 11:22:02 IST Reason:

1 ‘High Court’ 2 ‘Cr.PC’ 3 ‘IPC’

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 1 of 15

3. The appellant herein is Dr. C.S. Prasad, the de-facto complainant,

whereas the accused persons are Dr. C. Satyakumar, Dr. Swarnakumari (wife

of Dr. C. Satyakumar) and Shri S. Ravi Chitturi (their son), who are

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in this Appeal. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori, who

is respondent No. 5 herein, is the nephew of respondent No. 1 and the

appellant.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The record discloses that the present criminal proceedings arise out of

a dispute rooted in the execution of three registered settlement deeds

concerning valuable immovable properties situated in Chennai, originally

owned by Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi.

The couple had three sons, namely, respondent No. 1 (elder son), the

appellant herein, and Dr. C. Ranga Rao, who predeceased them in the year

2011. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori is the son of the predeceased Dr. C. Ranga Rao,

and nephew of respondent No. 1 and the appellant.

5. During their lifetime, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and Late Smt. C.

Lakshmi Devi are said to have executed three registered settlement deeds in

respect of different properties. The first settlement deed was executed on

31.12.2010 bearing Document No. 2701 of 2010, settling property bearing

R.S. Nos. 376/2 and 376/3 Part, Egmore village, Door No. 192, Poonamallee

High Road, Chennai, in favour of their elder son, respondent No. 1. Thereafter,

a second settlement deed came to be executed on 14.02.2012, registered as

Document No. 535 of 2012, in respect of Plot No. 2441, T.S. No.384, Block

No.I-D, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Subsequently, a third settlement deed was

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 2 of 15 executed on 30.03.2012, registered as Document No. 707 of 2012, in respect

of Door No.57, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

6. In the interregnum, on 28.03.2012, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana

executed a Power of Attorney4 in favour of respondent No. 1, authorising him

to present documents for registration. The third settlement deed dated

30.03.2012 was accordingly presented for registration through the said PoA

holder. Shortly thereafter, Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana passed away on

18.04.2012, followed by the demise of his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi on

22.04.2012.

7. Two years later, in 2014, respondent No. 5 instituted O.S. No. 2190 of

2014 before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,

seeking declaration that the three settlement deeds dated 31.12.2010,

14.02.2012 and 30.03.2012 were null and void, along with a prayer for

partition and separate possession of the properties. The appellant was arrayed

as defendant No. 2 in the said suit and had entered appearance. However, the

record reflects that he did not actively contest the proceedings and allowed

the matter to proceed ex parte against him.

8. During the pendency of civil proceedings, the appellant lodged a Police

complaint on 08.01.2020, alleging fraud, impersonation and forgery in the

execution of the settlement deeds. After preliminary inquiry, the Police closed

the complaint on 17.03.2020, treating the dispute to be of a purely civil

nature. Thereafter, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

4 ‘PoA’

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 3 of 15 by filing Crl.M.P. No. 13803 of 2021 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. On

12.10.2021, the learned Magistrate directed registration of an FIR. Pursuant

thereto, FIR No. 229 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 came to be registered by the

Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Egmore, Chennai, for offences

under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC against respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 herein and others.

9. Meanwhile, upon completion of the trial in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014, the

Civil Court by judgment dated 24.01.2023 dismissed O.S. No. 2190 of 2014,

upholding the validity of all the three settlement deeds. Aggrieved by the said

decree, respondent No. 5 preferred A.S. No. 403 of 2023 before the High Court.

By interim order dated 26.07.2023, the High Court had granted an order of

injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 restraining alienation of the

properties during the pendency of the appeal.

10. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 229 of 2021, the Police filed a

Final Report (FR-18/2023) dated 11.03.2023 before the learned Special

Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing

Cases, Allikulam, Egmore. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

offences, and the case was registered as C.C. No. 2 of 2023.

11. Earlier, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Crl.O.P. No. 16932 of 2022

before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR No. 229 of 2021. However,

the said petition was withdrawn on 28.07.2022. After cognizance was taken

on the Final Report, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 again approached the High Court

by filing Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 4 of 15 quashment of the entire criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No. 2 of 2023

arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021.

12. Vide its order dated 22.10.2024, the High Court allowed Crl.O.P. No.

10961 of 2023 and proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.

2 of 2023 qua respondent Nos. 1 to 3, holding inter alia that the ingredients

of the alleged offences in FIR No. 229 of 2021 were not made out and that the

allegations in the complaint amount to giving a civil dispute a criminal color.

The High Court also noted that that the appellant had suppressed material

facts relating to the earlier civil proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 initiated

by respondent No. 5 in which the appellant was also a party. According to the

High Court, all the three settlement deeds were executed during the lifetime

of the original owners and were duly registered in accordance with law and

that their validity had already been tested and upheld in a full-fledged civil

trial by dismissal of O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 and that the appellant, despite

being a party to the said suit, had consciously allowed it to proceed ex parte

against him. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the appellant had

knowledge of the impugned transactions since 2014, yet chose to initiate

criminal proceedings only in 2020, after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

In summation, the High Court was of the view that the continuation of

criminal prosecution against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would amount to misuse

of the criminal justice process.

13. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging

the quashing of proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of

2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 5 of 15 SUBMISSION OF PARTIES

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High Court had

failed to take note of the fact that the PoA executed by Late Dr. C.

Satyanarayana in favour of respondent No. 1 granted only limited authority

for registration of the deeds. However, according to the learned counsel for

the appellant, respondent No. 1 has misused the authority to execute the

settlement deeds in his own favour.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the PoA and the

subsequent settlement deeds are fraudulent documents and are alleged to

have been obtained by deceiving Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana. Learned counsel

further highlights that the High Court had failed to take note of the mental

state of Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana at the time of executing the settlement

deeds.

16. Lastly, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the High Court

had erroneously quashed the proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on

the pretext that the matter was a civil dispute. Learned counsel further

submits that both civil and criminal proceedings can co-exist if the

ingredients of the offence alleged are made out.

17. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has supported

the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing C.C. No. 2 of 2023

arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021. Learned counsel argues that the present

petition is a misuse of criminal process to re-open a family property dispute

that has already been decided in civil proceedings in its judgment dated

24.01.2023 passed in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 6 of 15

18. Learned counsel points out that the appellant had full knowledge of the

transactions since the filing of the said suit, and had deliberately remained

ex parte in the civil proceedings. To supplement, learned counsel further

points out that the complaint dated 08.01.2020 preferred by the appellant

was grossly delayed, and was filed only as a retaliatory measure after the civil

litigation.

19. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that the offences alleged against

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint are not made out and the same was

filed by the appellant only to harass respondent nos. 1 to 3.

ANALYSIS

20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

perused the material on record.

21. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the High

Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 1

to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021.

22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is extraordinary in

nature and is to be exercised with great caution. This Court in catena of

judgments has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping the

function of a trial court or conducting a mini-trial when disputed factual

questions attend the maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is

to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained in the FIR,

taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 7 of 15 In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others5, a Division

Bench of this Court had discussed about the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.PC

as follows:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings

5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 8 of 15 and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

(emphasis supplied)

23. Furthermore, in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State

of Maharashtra and Others6, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held

that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly,

and only where the complaint, even if accepted in full, discloses no offence or

continuation would amount to abuse of process. This Court had issued the

following directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while exercising the

power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC:

“Conclusions

33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

33.1….

33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.

33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information

6 (2021) 19 SCC 401

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 9 of 15 report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

33.8 to 33.11….

33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.

After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

33.13 and 33.14….

33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.

…..” (emphasis supplied)

24. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section

482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be

more cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High Court

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 10 of 15 exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the

genuineness of the allegations made. The High Court must only consider

whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or

not and must not be concerned with the reliability, sufficiency, or

acceptability of the evidence.

25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that the complaint dated

08.01.2020 made by the appellant contains categorical allegations that

respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by abusing the advanced age and medical

vulnerability of the executants, caused the execution and registration of the

three settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, and thereafter used such

documents as genuine for the purpose of deriving proprietary benefits. The

allegations in the complaint also disclose dishonest intention at the inception

of the transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of documents. At

this stage, we must note that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Cr.PC is bound to take the allegations on its face value. Whether

these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly within the

province of the Trial Court.

26. In the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the proceedings

primarily on the ground that the validity of the settlement deeds has been

upheld in the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the view that this

approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of

criminal jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from

the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings

does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 11 of 15 disclosed. In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others7, this Court

had made 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.”

27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed on

different principles. The decree passed by the Civil Court neither records

findings on criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as forgery,

cheating, or use of forged documents. Therefore, civil adjudication cannot

always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of

quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil proceedings have not

attained finality.

28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation

to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot

be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a

criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined

independently. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon

failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Cr.PC. To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit would

encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by

instituting civil proceedings.

29. A further perusal of the impugned order would show that the High

Court has also attached significance to the conduct of the appellant and the

7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 (Para 23)

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 12 of 15 delay of almost 6 years on his part in initiation of criminal proceedings

without any plausible explanation. The High Court had noted that the

appellant remained ex parte instead of participating in the civil proceedings

in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 of which he was already a party. Instead, the

appellant had preferred a private complaint suppressing the fact that the

settlement deeds are already a subject matter of the said suit. The High Court

had found this conduct of the appellant to be in favour of respondent Nos. 1

to 3 and had proceeded to quash the proceedings against them. Before we

express our opinion on this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant

observations of the High Court on this aspect:

“8. ……. In the said suit O.S.No.2190 of 2014, the defacto complainant C.S. Prasad was arrayed as 2nd defendant. He had entered appearance through a counsel, but had not contested the suit neither he filed statement or adduced evidence challenging the validity of the registered documents. He remained exparte. If really he had any material to establish that he was cheated by his elder brother by making false documents and forgery, he should have participated in the suit proceedings or atleast filed complaint immediately. He had filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police only on 08.01.2020 and the same after enquiry was closed on 17.03.2020 as civil dispute. When his complaint was closed as dispute is civil in nature, the suit O.S.No.2190 of 2014 was pending. Hence, he had all opportunities to file application to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and participate in the suit where the validity of the 3 settlements deeds were one of the issues under consideration.

9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding, the private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., suppressing the fact that settlement deeds are subject matter in the pending suit. In this regard it can be safely presumed that the 2nd respondent herein had knowledge about the settlement deeds if not earlier at least on the date of receipt of suit summons in O.S.No.2190 of 2014. Whereas no plausible explanation placed by him in his complaint for delay of 6 years in filing the complaint.”

(emphasis supplied)

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 13 of 15

30. We are not impressed with the above findings reached by the High

Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), this Court had

made it clear that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC,

the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions

of fact or record findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the

above observations of the High Court, we find that the High Court has erred

in law by embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the conduct of the

appellant and credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and

the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself, is never a ground for quashing

criminal proceedings at the threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily

explained or whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter

of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for summary

determination by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution

exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations require

adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed

in accordance with law. In the present case, the issues relating to the state of

mind of the executants at the time of execution of the settlement deeds, the

role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the execution and the use of the settlement

deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which

proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require a full-fledged trial on

evidence.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 14 of 15 CONCLUSION

32. In light of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons above, we come

to the following conclusion:

a) The Appeal is allowed.

b) The impugned order of the High Court dated 22.10.2024 passed in

Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 2

of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021 is set aside.

c) C.C. No. 2 of 2023 shall stand restored for trial before the learned

Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial

of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.

33. All contentions of the parties on merit are left open. We make it clear

that none of the observations contained herein shall have a bearing on the

main trial. The Trial Court shall independently arrive at its conclusion based

on the evidence tendered before it.

………………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

………………………………………J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 08, 2026

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 397/2025 Page 15 of 15