C.S. PRASADversusC. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS

                   [2026] 1 S.C.R. 424 : 2026 INSC 39

                               C.S. Prasad
                                    v.
                        C. Satyakumar and Others
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2026)
                                08 January 2026
           [Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal
       proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the criminal case
       arising out of FIR.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing the
       criminal proceedings – Family property dispute – Civil
       matter and criminal prosecution – Complaint by appellant
       alleging that respondents by abusing advanced age and
       medical vulnerability of the executants, caused execution and
       registration of settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage,
       used the documents as genuine for deriving proprietary
       benefits, disclosing dishonest intention at the inception of
       the transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of
       documents – Criminal case registered arising out of FIR
       u/ss.417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC – Prior thereto, civil suit
       had also been filed challenging the validity of the settlement
       deeds – Respondents sought quashment of entire criminal
       proceedings u/s.482 – High Court quashed the same holding
       that the dispute was of civil nature, there was delay and
       suppression of facts – Correctness:
       Held: 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 – 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 – Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a
       matter strictly within the province of the trial court – High Court not
       right in quashing the proceedings primarily on the ground that the


* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                                 425

                 C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


     validity of the settlement deeds has been upheld in the proceedings
     before the Civil Court – 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 disclosed – Civil adjudication cannot
     always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the
     stage of quashment – Moreover, the civil proceedings have not
     attained finality – Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged
     documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a
     civil element – Thus, 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 –
     To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit would encourage
     unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting
     civil proceedings – High Court 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, never a ground for quashing
     criminal proceedings at the threshold – When factual foundation
     for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by
     invoking inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 – Where allegations require
     adjudication on evidence, proper course is to permit the trial to
     proceed in accordance with law – On facts, the issues relating to
     the state of mind of the executants at the time of execution of the
     settlement deeds, the role of respondents in the execution and the
     use of the settlement deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and
     the manner in which proprietary advantage obtained by them, all
     require a full-fledged trial on evidence – Thus, impugned order of
     the High Court quashing the proceedings in the criminal case set
     aside – Criminal case restored for trial. [Paras 22, 24-29, 30-31]

                                Case Law Cited
     State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1990] Supp.
     3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure
     Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2021] 4
     SCR 1044 : (2021) 19 SCC 401; Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S.
     Reddy and Others [2025] 7 SCR 463 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
     1428 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Penal Code, 1860.
426                                                               [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


                                List of Keywords
       Quashing criminal proceedings; Family property dispute; Civil
       matter; Criminal prosecution; Validity of the settlement deeds;
       Dispute of civil nature; Delay; Suppression of facts; Mini-trial; Civil
       liability; Criminal liability; Civil adjudication; Criminal culpability;
       Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       140 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.2024 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 10961 of 2023

                            Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv., Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj
       Mahendran, Harikrishnan P.V, Kavin Ananth. C, C. Aadhikesavan.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv./ A.A.G., S. R. Rajagopal, Sr. Adv.,
       Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Vidhusan
       C., Shanmitha, Ms. Vaisnavi Jay, Shikhar Bhardwaj, Mrs. Aarthi
       Rajan, Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.F.Philip, Togin M. Babichen,
       Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Sabarish Subramanian.

                    Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    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


1    ‘High Court’
2    ‘Cr.PC’
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                         427

                 C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


       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.
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 executed on 30.03.2012, registered as Document No. 707 of
       2012, in respect of Door No.57, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.



3    ‘IPC’
428                                                          [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


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 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.


4    ‘PoA’
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                       429

                C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


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 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.
430                                                        [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       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.
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.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                               431

                   C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


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. 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



5   (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
432                                                           [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


                   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
                   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


6   (2021) 19 SCC 401
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                              433

                C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


     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 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.
434                                                          [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          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 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
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                         435

                   C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


     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 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.



7   2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 (Para 23)
436                                                         [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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 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
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                              437

                C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar and Others


           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)

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.
438                                                              [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       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.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain