Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Against RSSB Officials Over Modi Bhawan Demolition, Holds Criminal Probe Unwarranted While Civil Suits Pending
The Uttarakhand High Court quashed FIR No. 18 of 2025 registered at P.S. Mussoorie, finding the dispute over Modi Bhawan essentially civil in nature with both parties already pursuing separate suits.
The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has quashed FIR No. 18 of 2025, registered on 22 April 2025 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. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, sitting singly, allowed two connected writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ajay Kumar Sikri, the Area Secretary of Radha Swami Satsang Beas (RSSB), and Hari Ram Sharma, another person named in the proceedings. The court held that once both parties had independently filed civil suits over the same property, continuing the criminal investigation would be wholly unwarranted and would prejudice the outcome of those pending suits.
The Property Dispute and the FIR
The complainant, respondent no. 3, described herself as the Chairman of Modi Enterprises Group and Managing Director of Godfrey Phillips India Limited. She claimed to be the co-owner of Modi Bhawan Part-A, Camel Back Road, Mussoorie — a property she said was an undivided asset of her late husband, Late K.K. Modi. She alleged that on 14 February 2025 the entire property was demolished, furniture, paintings, and household articles were stolen, and the Radha Swami Satsang Society had encroached upon and taken possession of the property.
The complainant stated she had hired M/s Rajputana Security Services since 2006 to maintain the property, with the last invoice raised on 31 January 2025 amounting to Rs. 1,06,008.84. She reported the incident to the concerned police station but no action was taken. She then approached the S.S.P., Dehradun, and when that too yielded no FIR, she moved an application under section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and directed registration of the FIR. The FIR named offences punishable under sections 126, 305, 306, 324(5), and 329 read with section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
RSSB, for its part, claimed it had purchased Modi Bhawan No. 2 through a registered sale deed dated 3 December 2001 from Dr. Kedarnath Modi, described as the true owner at the time. Ajay Kumar Sikri was said to be the Area Secretary of the Society, responsible only for organising regular satsang programmes, with no ownership interest in the property. Hari Ram Sharma was similarly described as having been unnecessarily roped into the matter.
Competing Claims and Parallel Civil Proceedings
The property dispute had already generated two civil suits by the time the writ petitions were heard. RSSB 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. An interim injunction was granted in that suit. The schedule of property in that plaint described Modi Bhawan No. 2, previously known as North Side Cottage, Camel Back Road, Mussoorie, with a total land area of 0.50 acres.
The complainant, Beena Modi, filed O.S. No. 297 of 2025 against RSSB seeking possession of the property known as The Rockden House (Modi Bhawan No. 1), damages of Rs. 10 lakhs for demolition and theft of articles, mesne profits of Rs. 2,50,000 per month from 14 February 2025 until restoration of possession, and a permanent injunction against further construction or alteration.
The complainant's senior counsel, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, pointed out that the Civil Court had appointed a Court Ameen on 25 June 2025 to inspect the site in the pending suit, and that the Ameen had submitted a report. He also drew the court's attention to notices issued by the Municipal Board to the Society regarding alleged illegal construction. He argued that the Society had proceeded with construction under the cover of the interim injunction obtained in Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025, even though that injunction related to Modi Bhawan No. 2 and not to Modi Bhawan No. 1, which the complainant described as a distinct property.
The State's Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, informed the court 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.
The Legal Contest: Civil Cloak or Independent Criminality
The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, argued that the FIR disclosed no cognizable offence against the petitioners, that no specific role had been assigned to either petitioner, and that the dispute was plainly civil in nature. He 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 the alleged incident except that one person, Surendra Prasad Sati, was found at the site with no knowledge of any incident.
Mr. Guglani relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 11 SCC 673, which held that where a dispute is essentially civil in nature and a civil remedy has been adopted, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process. He 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 for the proposition that criminal prosecution must not be used as an instrument of harassment or to pressurize the other side.
Mr. Vashistha countered that the allegations — demolition of a dwelling house, removal of debris to erase evidence, organised theft of household articles, and obstruction of revenue officials 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, K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. (2020) 14 SCC 552, Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others 2025 SCC Online SC 1428, and S.N. Vijay v. State of Karnataka and Others 2025 Live Law SC 758, all to the effect that the availability of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution where elements of criminality independently exist.
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 to the accused. He further submitted that a Coordinate Bench had already disposed of a connected petition, Writ Petition (Crl) No. 483 of 2025, in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
On the distinguishability of Paramjeet Batra, Mr. Vashistha argued that the earlier case involved a business and tenancy dispute, whereas the present FIR alleged physical demolition of a dwelling house and theft — acts that amounted to what he described as a criminal metamorphosis of the underlying property dispute.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Thapliyal accepted that civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution as a general proposition. The court agreed with Mr. Vashistha on that principle. However, the court held that the settled corollary is equally binding: where a civil dispute has been given the cloak of a criminal offence, the High Court must not hesitate to 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 — the very acts alleged in the FIR. 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 that mentioned in the FIR.
The court observed that allowing the investigation to continue while both civil suits were pending would mean that the investigation would effectively be used to procure evidence for the benefit of one party in the civil proceedings. The court noted that the counter affidavit filed by the complainant itself revealed that the dispute was civil in nature, since it referred to the Court Ameen's report and the ongoing contest over construction — matters squarely before the civil court.
The court declined to express any opinion on the Ameen's report, noting that it was under scrutiny in the pending suit and that any observation at that stage would affect the civil proceedings. The court also took note of the fact that after investigation the police had submitted a final report finding no criminality, though the status of that report's acceptance was not confirmed.
Justice Thapliyal held that since both parties had availed civil remedies by filing separate suits in respect of the same property, the initiation of criminal proceedings during the pendency of those suits was wholly unwarranted. The court added that if the final outcome of the civil suits revealed any criminality, both parties would remain free to launch criminal proceedings at that stage.
Order
Both writ petitions were allowed. FIR No. 18 of 2025 dated 22 April 2025, registered at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun, was quashed. The court directed that its observations and findings would not influence the Trial Court in deciding Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025 and Civil Suit No. 297 of 2025, and that the Trial Court was free to proceed with both suits independently. No order as to costs was made.