Forgery Allegations Can't Be Swept Away Just Because a Civil Court Gave Its Verdict: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Trial

“Civil adjudication does not determine criminal intent or culpability” – In a strong rebuke to the Madras High Court’s quashing of a cheating and forgery case arising from a family property dispute, the Supreme Court of India reinstating criminal proceedings that had been prematurely shut down. The Apex Court made it emphatically clear that the mere existence of a civil decree cannot be the basis to stifle criminal prosecution, especially where the allegations disclose serious offences involving cheating, criminal conspiracy, and forgery.

Delivering the ruling, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Madras High Court’s order dated 22.10.2024, which had quashed proceedings in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021, registered under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misapplied the test under Section 482 of the CrPC, warning that:

“When a factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction.”

The Court reinstated the case for trial and reminded the judiciary that civil and criminal remedies may coexist, and courts must be slow to nip criminal trials in the bud unless the case is absurd on its face.

“Quashing is Not a Stage for Mini-Trials” – Allegations Must Be Taken at Face Value

At the heart of the dispute lies a web of family property transactions involving three settlement deeds executed between 2010 and 2012, allegedly by an aging couple—Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and his wife Lakshmi Devi—in favour of their elder son (respondent No. 1), just weeks before their deaths. The appellant, Dr. C.S. Prasad, brother of respondent No. 1, alleged that the deeds were executed by misusing a Power of Attorney, obtained during the parents’ medical vulnerability and frailty, and that forgery, fraud and impersonation were employed to grab valuable immovable properties in Chennai.

While the Madras High Court viewed the entire matter as a civil family dispute, the Supreme Court took an entirely different view, noting that the FIR contained specific allegations of dishonest intention at inception, as well as the use of forged documents.

Refusing to evaluate the merits of the case at this stage, the Court reminded that:

“At this stage, the High Court is bound to take the allegations on their face value. Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly within the province of the Trial Court.”

It further cautioned that “the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact” and that Section 482 CrPC is not meant to pre-judge evidence.

“Delay Is No Excuse to Deny Criminal Justice” – Court Discards High Court’s Reasoning on Complaint Timing

The High Court had also quashed the case on the ground that there was a six-year delay in filing the criminal complaint. The appellant had remained ex parte in the civil suit and only filed the criminal complaint in 2020, years after the disputed deeds were executed. The High Court held this to be indicative of abuse of process.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating firmly that:

“Delay in filing a complaint, by itself, is never a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.”

Referring to its earlier ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reminded that even if the complainant’s conduct raises questions, such matters can only be assessed after evidence is led at trial—not while invoking inherent powers to quash.

It was further held that:

“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.”

“A Civil Suit Doesn’t Whitewash Criminal Fraud” – Supreme Court Cautions Against Misusing Civil Decrees to Evade Prosecution

Another key error committed by the High Court was relying on the civil court’s dismissal of a suit challenging the same settlement deeds. The civil suit (O.S. No. 2190 of 2014), filed by the nephew of the parties, was dismissed in January 2023, thereby upholding the validity of the settlement deeds. The High Court treated this civil decree as conclusive and held that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court flatly rejected this view, stating:

“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.”

The Bench observed that the standard of proof, scope, and purpose of civil and criminal law are distinct, and the mere pendency or dismissal of a civil suit does not preclude the State from prosecuting criminal conduct.

Reinforcing this principle, the Court cited its recent judgment in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, declaring 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.”

Criminal Process Must Not Be Short-Circuited When Prima Facie Case Exists

In allowing the appeal and restoring C.C. No. 2 of 2023, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Trial Court is the proper forum to assess the veracity of the allegations. The Bench made it clear that its observations should not influence the outcome of the trial, and all parties are free to raise their defences on merits.

“The Trial Court shall independently arrive at its conclusion based on the evidence tendered before it.”

This ruling strengthens the legal position that criminal prosecutions cannot be prematurely terminated on the basis of parallel civil proceedings, and allegations of fraud and criminal intent require adjudication through evidence—not assumption.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026