Can karta be guilty of fraud?

A Karta can be found guilty for illegal or immoral acts involving ancestral property.

While a Karta has significant powers to manage and dispose of ancestral property, these powers are not absolute and are subject to legal and ethical restrictions.

Family members can challenge and prosecute a Karta for wrongful actions. 

A Karta is authorized to sell or dispose of ancestral property without the consent of coparceners only when there is a "legal necessity" for the family or for the "benefit of the estate".

If the Karta sells property for their own personal gain, or if there is no pressing family need, the alienation can be legally challenged.

Sir,

My main query was regarding Precedents/Citations  where Karta was found guilty in such cases.

Is there any realtime context for this query?

Yes Sir 

You may have to search for suitable citations through internet or engage the services of an advocate to find a suitable precedent/citation

Prima facie it is a hypothetical time pass post. 

No Sir, It is not so. I have searched a lot but didn't find suitable precedent that's why I asked here. 

You can take the assistance of your own advocate in this regard to find out a suitable citation, we don't supply citations here.

Respected Vashisht Sir,

Most of the cases are related to challenge of alienation, some were decided in favour of Karta and a few a decided against Karta.

My query, specifically, is seeking a situation where Karta has destroyed (for bad habits) triple the share he is actually entitled to, if Partition or Notional Partition happens.

Other coparcerners have to pay-off the debts taken by the Karta for saving their ancestral property and family honour. In this situation they want to change Karta.

Particular reference is being requested in such case.

Criminal law point — Section 405/406 IPC and test for prosecution — A Karta can be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust if there is clear evidence of dishonest misappropriation/usage of HUF property (mens rea, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must be shown). But courts caution that mere civil breach or bad management does not automatically make it a penal offence; dishonest intent must be proved. (See discussion of Section 405/406 and Hari Prasad Chamaria etc.). 
Criminal route is possible but narrower: to convert the dispute into a criminal prosecution for criminal breach of trust (s.405/406 IPC) you must show entrustment + dishonest misappropriation (mens rea). Mere bad management or a civil breach → usually civil remedy only. Courts often quash criminal proceedings if the core issue is a civil dispute unless clear dishonest intent is shown. 
Default rule: A Karta may alienate HUF property — the alienation will be binding if done for legal necessity or betterment/benefit of the estate and the purchaser is a bona fide buyer. The Courts place an evidentiary burden on the challengers to show absence of legal necessity or mala fides. 

When a sale can be impeached / set aside: classic grounds are (i) no genuine legal necessity / not for benefit of estate, (ii) sale was in bad faith or for personal/predatory gain of Karta, (iii) collusion or fraud with the purchaser (sham sale), (iv) grossly inadequate consideration / undervaluation, (v) forged documents/forgery. Courts will look at contemporaneous evidence (books, receipts, who received money, how money was used).

Sir,

I appreciate your sincere reply but the KEY POINT is still left answered and i.e. "precedent/s where Karta was found guilty of fraud or misappropriation."

Hari Prasad Chamaria case was not a case related to HUF or Joint Family Property, and it was, also, not sustained in court.

Any case/s where Karta was found guilty?

Please refer to N S Balaji Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal 2023 SCC online SC 1266 which have made reference of the case Pheonix ARC (P) Ltd Vs Vishwa Bharti Vidya Mandir 2022  5 SCC 345 citing Sri Naryan Bal V Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54 

Respected Vashista Sir,

None of the mentioned case supports the issue raised by me.  Business Partnership is separate thing and HUF/Joint Ancestral Property is separate thing.

None of the case discuss a situation where Karta was proved guilty of Fraud/Misappropriation.

I am very junior to you so please don't mind my remarks.

You are yet to post the material facts or the real context. Please note that, in our country, no person is above the law. 

And, Precedents are no magic wands. Ratio set down in any judgment has to be understood in the context of the facts pleaded,  arguments advanced and the legal concepts applied.