Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Over Modi Bhawan Demolition Dispute, Holds Criminal Probe Unwarranted While Civil Suits Pending
The Uttarakhand High Court quashed FIR No. 18 of 2025 against members of Radha Swami Satsang Beas, finding the property dispute at Mussoorie already before civil courts.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, sitting singly at the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, on 26 May 2026 quashed FIR No. 18 of 2025 registered at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun, which alleged demolition of a dwelling house, theft of valuable articles, and criminal trespass at a property known as Modi Bhawan, Camel Back Road, Mussoorie. The court allowed two connected writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution — Writ Petition (Crl) No. 365 of 2025 by Ajay Kumar Sikri, Area Secretary of Radha Swami Satsang Beas, and Writ Petition (Crl) No. 453 of 2025 by Hari Ram Sharma — holding that continuing the criminal investigation while two civil suits over the same property remained pending before the civil courts was wholly unwarranted and would prejudice the outcome of those suits.
The FIR and the Dispute at Modi Bhawan
The FIR was lodged on 22 April 2025 by the complainant, who described herself as Chairman of Modi Enterprises Group and Managing Director of Godfrey Phillips India Limited, and as co-owner of Modi Bhawan Part-A, Camel Back Road, Mussoorie. The complainant alleged that on 14 February 2025 the entire property was demolished, furniture, paintings, and household articles were stolen, and the spiritual society Radha Swami Satsang Beas encroached upon and took possession of the property.
The complainant stated she had engaged M/s Rajputana Security Services to look after the property since 2006, with the last invoice raised on 31 January 2025 amounting to Rs. 1,06,008.84. She alleged that Surendra Sharma played a key role in facilitating the demolition and that agents and accomplices of the Society, including petitioner Ajay Kumar Sikri, entered into a criminal conspiracy to demolish a common wall between Modi Bhawan-1 and Modi Bhawan-2 and remove debris to erase evidence.
The FIR was registered under sections 126, 305, 306, 324(5), and 329 read with section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant had first approached the concerned police station and then the SSP, Dehradun, without success, before moving an application under section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before a Judicial Magistrate, who allowed it and directed registration of the FIR.
The Society's position was that Modi Bhawan was purchased by Radha Swami Satsang Beas through its authorised representative Shri Chander Mohan Issar by a registered sale deed dated 3 December 2001 from Dr. Kedarnath Modi, whom the Society described as the true owner and predecessor of the complainant. Ajay Kumar Sikri's role, according to his counsel, was limited to making arrangements for regular satsang programmes as Area Secretary; he was neither the owner nor a resident of the property.
Competing Title Claims and the Civil Litigation
The complainant's senior counsel, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, traced the title of the property in question back to a sale deed dated 18 February 1943 in favour of Shri Rai Bahadur Gujar Mal Modi, through a chain of transactions originating from the Rockcliff Estate. He argued that Modi Bhawan-1 and Modi Bhawan-2 were two distinct properties, both located at Camel Back Road, and that the Society's registered sale deed of 2001 covered only Modi Bhawan-2, not the property in question.
By the time the writ petitions were heard, both sides had filed civil suits. The Society filed Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the complainant and her agents from interfering with the Society's possession of the suit property, described in the plaint as Modi Bhawan No. 2. An interim injunction was granted in that suit. The complainant filed O.S. No. 297 of 2025 titled Beena Modi v. Radha Swami Satsang Beas, seeking possession of the property described as The Rockden House (Modi Bhawan No. 1), damages of Rs. 10 lakhs for demolition and theft, mesne profits of Rs. 2,50,000 per month from 14 February 2025, and a permanent injunction against further construction.
The civil court in Suit No. 169 of 2025 appointed a Survey Ameen on 26 June 2025, who submitted a report after spot inspection. The report noted an entry gate of RSSB, a Langar Hall capable of seating 70 to 80 persons, and described the surrounding boundaries. The complainant also alleged that under the cover of the interim injunction in the Society's suit, construction was being raised on the disputed site, and she moved an application to stay such construction.
The SDM, Mussoorie, had also issued a notice to Ajay Kumar Sikri on 1 April 2025 in his capacity as Area Secretary and directed a joint survey by revenue officials, MDDA, and the Municipal Corporation. According to the complainant's counsel, Society officials obstructed the survey team from carrying out demarcation.
Arguments on Whether the FIR Should Survive
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR disclosed no cognizable offence against either petitioner, that no specific role was assigned to them in the FIR, and that the allegations were general in nature. They contended that the dispute was civil in character, made plain by the fact that the complainant herself had filed a civil suit with the same set of allegations seeking possession and damages.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 11 SCC 673, where the Court held that when a dispute is essentially civil and a civil remedy has been adopted, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The petitioners also cited Usha Chakraborty and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another (2023) 15 SCC 135 and Indermohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others (2021) 14 SCC 626 for the proposition that criminal prosecution must not be used as an instrument of harassment or to pressurize the other side.
Counsel also pointed out that the Judicial Magistrate had allowed the section 175(3) BNSS application without adequately considering the police report, which contained no reference to any such incident as alleged in the FIR, except that one person named Surendra Prasad Sati was found at the place but had no knowledge of the incident.
Mr. Vashistha, for the complainant, countered that the demolition of a dwelling house, removal of debris to erase evidence, organised theft of household articles, and obstruction of public authorities from conducting demarcation constituted independent criminal acts that could not be reduced to a civil dispute. He relied on Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736, Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others 2025 SCC Online SC 1428, K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. (2020) 14 SCC 552, S.N. Vijay v. State of Karnataka and Others 2025 Live Law SC 758, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shilpa Jain and Others 2024 INSC 278 to argue that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution where an element of criminality independently exists.
Mr. Vashistha also relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, arguing that when investigation is in progress the court should not go into the merits of the FIR and should refrain from granting protection against arrest. He sought to distinguish Paramjeet Batra on the ground that the dispute there was a purely commercial one about hotel business and shop tenancy, whereas the present case involved physical destruction of a building.
A significant development emerged from the State's side. The Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, informed the court on instructions that after thorough investigation a final report had been submitted finding no criminality, though he had no instructions on whether the final report had been accepted.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Thapliyal accepted that the civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution as a general proposition, but held that the court must examine whether a civil dispute has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Where that is the case, the High Court should quash the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process.
The court examined the reliefs sought in O.S. No. 297 of 2025 in detail. Relief A sought possession of the same property that was the subject of the FIR. Relief B sought Rs. 10 lakhs in damages for demolition and theft of articles. Relief C sought Rs. 2,50,000 per month from 14 February 2025 for illegal possession. Relief D sought a permanent injunction against further construction. The schedule of property in the plaint was the same as the property described in the FIR.
The court reasoned that once the complainant had availed a civil remedy in respect of the same property and the same allegations, permitting the criminal investigation to continue would amount to procuring evidence to gain an advantage in the pending civil suit. The court held that the investigation would “seriously prejudice to either of the party of the pending civil suits” and would have an impact on the merits of those suits.
The court also noted that the Society's Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025 covered the same property, that a Survey Ameen had been appointed and had submitted a report that was itself under scrutiny in the pending suit, and that expressing any opinion on the Ameen's report at that stage would affect the civil proceedings. The court declined to do so.
Justice Thapliyal held that since both parties had already availed civil remedies by filing separate suits in respect of the same property, they must pursue those suits to their conclusion. If the final outcome of the civil suits revealed any criminality, both parties would be free to launch criminal proceedings at that stage. The court applied the reasoning in Paramjeet Batra and held that continuation of the investigation was not justifiable.
Order
Both writ petitions were allowed. FIR No. 18 of 2025 dated 22 April 2025, Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun, was quashed.
The court made clear that its observations would not influence the trial courts deciding Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025 and Civil Suit No. 297 of 2025, and that both suits were free to proceed independently without being affected by the findings in the judgment. No order as to costs was made.