AJAY KUMAR SIKRI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 365 of 2025
Ajay Kumar Sikri. ………………… Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others. ……………Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel
for the respondent no. 3.
With
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 453 of 2025
Hari Ram Sharma. ………………… Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others. ……………Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Parveen Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel
for the respondent no. 3.
Judgment Reserved on: 12.03.2026
Judgment Delivered on:26.05.2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Both these two writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
quashing of First Information Report dated 22.04.2025 bearing FIR
No. 18 of 2025 lodged by respondent no. 3 for the offences
punishable under sections 126, 305, 306, 324(5), 329 r/w section 61
of BNS, 2023, P.S. Mussoorie, District Dehradun.
2. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as
described in the FIR to clearly understand the context of both the
writ petitions.
2
3. FIR states that the complainant at present is the Chairman of
“Modi Enterprises Group” of Late K.K. Modi and is also the
Managing Director of “Godfrey Phillips India Limited” and is the
co-owner of the property namely Modi Bhawan Part-A, Camel
Back Road Library, Mussoorie, which was an undivided property
of Late K.K. Modi-the husband of complainant and paying all
taxes including house tax as well as electricity bills and “M/s
Rajputana Security Services” was hired to provide services to take
care and lookafter the property and the said agency deputed one
guard, one supervisor, one cleaner and one cook in the aforesaid
property. It is alleged in the FIR that Mr. Surendra Sharma
hatched a conspiracy to encroach upon the aforesaid property and
she came to know from some reliable sources that on 14.02.2025
the entire property was demolished and the furniture, paintings
including household articles lying inside the property were also
stolen away and Society known as Radha Swami Satsang have
encroached and take possession of the property. It is further
alleged that after getting information about this incident the
complainant instruct her Manager to enquire about the incident. It
is alleged that person concerned conspired to demolish the
property and take possession and stolen valuable articles due to
which she suffered huge financial loss.
4. It is further alleged that she reported to the concerned police
station about the said incident but no action was taken on her
complaint then she report to the S.S.P., Dehradun, despite this no
FIR was registered. Consequently, she moved an application
under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 for registration of FIR, which
was allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated and even
3
impugned FIR does not discloses any cognizable offence against
the petitioner, since no specific role has been assigned to the
petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in
the FIR and the allegations are general in nature and no such
demolition took place and the dispute is relating to property
which appears to be civil in nature.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that
infact Modi Bhawan was purchased by “Radha Swami Satsang
Beas”, which is a spiritual society registered under the Societies
Registration Act through its authorized representative “Shri
Chander Mohan Issar” way back in the year of 2001 by virtue of
registered sale deed dated 03.12.2001 from its true owner Dr.
Kedarnath Modi. He submits that the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sikri
is presently the Area Secretary of the Society and assigned the
duties to make arrangement of regular satsang programme and
neither he is the owner nor reside there.
7. Mr. Guglani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the impugned FIR does not discloses the commission of any
cognizable offence and there is no specific allegations and the
Judicial Magistrate without gone through with the police report
allowed the application under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023
though in the police report there was no reference of any such
incident as alleged in the impugned FIR except that one person
namely Surendra Prasad Sati was found at the place but he had no
knowledge about such incident.
8. Mr. Praveen Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WPCRL No. 453 of 2025 submits that the dispute is nothing but a
property dispute, which is evident from the fact that both the
parties the society and the complainant instituted their respective
suits against each other and the petitioner Hari Ram Sharma
4
unnecessarily roped in the issue and as such impugned FIR is
liable to be quashed.
9. The Coordinate Bench on 25.04.2025 after gone through
with the record observed that the petitioner deserves for
protection since the land was purchased by the Society through a
registered sale deed in the year 2001 and grant interim protection.
10. Learned senior counsel for the complainant/respondent Mr.
Arvind Vashistha argued that the present case is a classic case of
fraud and the petitioner has no document/title to demonstrate
that society is the owner of Modi Bhawan-1 and the respondent-
complainant is a widow who after demise of her husband
managing the property through the caretakers and Modi Bhawan-
1 was an undivided property belonging to Modi family recorded
in the name of respondent’s husband Late K.K. Modi and other
co-owners and after demise of her husband she became absolute
co-owner and paying property tax, electricity bills and also hired
M/s Rajputana Security Services for taking care of the property.
He further submits that the property owned by the Society and
the property in question of which the respondent-complainant is
the co-sharer are two distinct properties though located in the
same place.
11. Mr. Vashistha further submits that the property in question
was purchased by one “Shri Rai Bahadur Gujar Mal Modi” from
one Smt. Shakuntla Rao D/o Major S.R. Rao by virtue of
registered sale deed dated 18.02.1943, wherein, it was mentioned
that the property was an unsold portion of the Rockcliff Estate
and Mr. Colonel Kathkusa was the owner of the unsold portion
who subsequently sold to Puran Chand Mall and Major S.R. Rao
jointly vide sale deed dated 07.08.1935 and subsequently by way
of partition deed dated 02.10.1936 between Puran Chand Mall and
5
Major S.R. Rao property in question came into the share of Major
S.R. Rao who gifted the property to Smt. Shakuntla Rao through
gift deed dated 19.07.1938 and during the ownership of Smt.
Shakuntla Rao a building known as “Rockden House” was
constructed over there which was sold out to “Shri Rai Bahadur
Gujar Mal Modi” in 1943.
12. Learned senior counsel further submits that the property in
question comprises four bedrooms on the ground floor, one room
on the first floor, servant’s quarter and open verandah and to
lookafter this entire property in the year of 2006 services of M/s
Rajputana Security Services was hired and all the expenses were
borne by respondent no. 3. He further submits that the last invoice
was raised on 31.01.2025 amounting to Rs. 1,06,008.84 (Rupees
One Lakh Six thousand eight and eighty four paise only).
He further submits that the agents, employeese and
accomplices including Mr. Ajay Sikri the present petitioner of the
Society entered into a criminal conspiracy and has stolen valuable
articles lying in the property including furniture, fixtures, several
valuable paintings and antiques worth of lakhs of rupees and Mr.
Surendra Sharma, who was looking after the property has played
a key role in conspiracy and facilitate the demolition and
encroachment over the property in question.
13. Learned senior counsel further submits that Mr. Anil
Khanna, the Manager of the complainant visited the site of the
property on instruction of informant and all the allegations as
alleged in the FIR were found to be true and correct. Certain
photographs of dwelling house are also enclosed to demonstrate
that there was actual demolition. He submits that immediately a
complaint was made to the S.H.O. concerned but on the pressure
of the Society the FIR was not lodged. Consequently, the
6
informant was compelled to move an application under section
175(3) of BNSS, 2023 for registration of the FIR and after taking
into consideration all the materials the learned Judicial Magistrate
allowed the application and then impugned FIR was registered.
He also submits that a written complaint was also given to the
S.D.M., Mussoorie, who instruct to the Revenue Officials
including the Officials of MDDA and the Municipal Coporation to
conduct the joint survey and inspection and submit a report and
also issued notice to the petitioner on 01.04.2025 in the capacity of
Area Secretary of the Society, however he did not submit any
documents before the S.D.M. and the officials of the society
obstruct them to conduct survey.
14. Mr. Vashistha submits that a civil suit was also filed by the
Society through its authorized representative, wherein, the
respondent-complainant arrayed as defendant, however, in the
plaint there is no disclosure about pending proceeding before the
S.D.M. and in this suit interim injunction was also granted.
Mr. Vashistha also drew attention of this court to the plaint
of aforesaid civil suit No. 169 of 2025 instituted by the Society,
wherein, following relief has been sought, which read as under:
“ i. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, her
agents, servants, employees, or any person acting on her behalf from
alienating, transferring, creating any third-party interest, or in any
manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property by the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice, equity, and good
conscience.”
ii. Such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit,
just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of equity, fairness, and justice.
In the plaint schedule of the property is also described as
follows:
“ SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY :
7
All that property known as "Modi Bhawan No. 2" (previously
known as "North Side Cottage") situated at Camel's Back Road,
Mussoorie, District Dehradun (Uttaranchal), having a total land
area of 0.50 Acre with a residential building erected thereon
comprising ground floor covered area of 175.31 square meters,
open stairs of 22.85 square meters, first floor covered area of
116.17 square meters and Tin Shed Veranda of 29.78 square
meters, together with land underneath the structure, along with
all rights of ownership, title, possession, casements, advantages,
appurtenances, and all fittings and fixtures anached thereto.
East. Common Passage upto the boundary of property hereby
sold (in part)& property known as Modi Bhawan no.1.
West: Common passage passing through the property of Modi
Bhawan no.3 linked with Camel back's Road upto the boundry
of property hereby sold.
North: Camel Back Road, Mussoorie.
South Property known as Prem Niketan owned by purchaser
society.”
15. Mr. Vashistha also submits that under the garb of interim
injunction granted by the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit the
Society proceeded by raising construction on the site of the
property without any title over the said portion i.e. Modi Bhawan-
1 and an application has been moved in the aforesaid pending suit
for staying the constructions and the civil court appoint court
Ameen on 25.06.2025, who carried out inspection and submit it’s
report in the pending suit.
16. Mr. Vashistha also drew attention of this court of certain
notices issued bythe Municipal Board to the Society with regard
to the illegal construction.
17. In response to the counter affidavit the rejoinder affidavit
has also been filed by the petitioner and all the averment of
counter affidavit have been denied.
8
18. Mr. Guglani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, in pending Suit No. 169
of 2025 appoint the Survey Ameen on 26.06.2025, who submitted
its report after spot inspection, wherein, it is clealry mentioned
that after visiting the suit property bearing Modi Bhawan-2 Camel
Back Road Mussoorie there is an entry gate of RSSB and in the
west side of the suit property empty land is found, which is part
of the building of the Society and in the southern side there is a
property known as “Prem-Niketan” and in the north side Camel
Back Road is situated and in the eastern side there is a three storey
building which is said to be part of the Society namely RSSB.
In the report it is mentioned that there is one Langar Hall
(community kitchen) where around 70 to 80 persons may sit and
take langar. The survey report is also accompanied by a site map
prepared by Survey Ameen, which is as under:
19. In rejoinder affidavit reference has also been made of
another civil suit i.e. O.S. No. 297 of 2025 filed by the respondent-
complainant against the Society tilted as Benna Modi vs. Radha
Swami Satsang Beas, wherein, the following relief has been
sought:
9
“A. That the defendant be directed to hand over the possession
of the property in suit to the plaintiff and if the defendant fails to
handover the possession, then the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
get it vacated through its agency and handover the possession of
the property to plaintiff.
B. That the defendant be directed to pay damages of Rs.
10,00,000 for demolishing the building, stealing the goods lying
in the property, artefacts, paintings and other valuable goods.
C. That the defendant be directed to pay Rs. 2.50,000 per month
from 14.02.2025 date from defendant being in illegal possession
of the property till the date of possession.
D. That the defendant be restrained through permanent
injunction from changing the nature of property in suit and
raising any kind of construction upon it.”
The schedule of the property as described in the plaint is
as follows:
“
Schedule of Property
All the property known as THE ROCKDEN HOUSE (MODI
BHAWAN NO. 1), camel back rond, Mussoorie, Dehradun
morefully shown by red color in plan annexed to the plaint
bounded and butted as under:
By North Camel Back Road and Nala
By South Rockden Cottage
By East Ravine and the Mull Estate
By West Ravine.”
20. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the allegations as alleged in impugned
FIR prima-facie appears to be a dispute of civil nature, which is
evident from the fact that with the same set of allegations and
facts the respondent/complainant filed a suit for possession,
damages towards cost of stolen articles and on this account alone
impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
He further submits that no specific allegations have been
alleged against the petitioner and the petitioner is only act as an
Area Secretary of the Society namely RSSB, which is a spiritual
society and have no connection with the allegations as alleged.
10
He submits that the society purchased the property in the
year of 2001 by virtue of sale deed dated 03.12.2001 from its true
owner Dr. Kedarnath Modi, the predecessor of the respondent-
complainant and, therefore, it reveals that the complainant with
some vested interest create a dispute giving a colour of criminal
offence by lodging the impugned FIR.
21. Mr. Guglani also pointed out that learned Judicial
Magistrate while allowing the application under section 175(3) of
BNSS, 2023 completely overlooked the report of concerned police
station, wherein, there is no reference of any such incident as
alleged in the impugned FIR. He further pointed out that the
documents as enclosed along with the counter affidavit regarding
property tax, electricity bills and the receipts of making payment
to the employees engaged by M/s Rajputana Security Services,
have no relevance since all these are subject matter of pending
civil suits filed by both the parties.
22. Mr. Guglani also submits that the impugned FIR does not
discloses commission of any cognizable offence and the
allegations as alleged appears to be a concocted story, false and
fictitious and, hence, the impugned FIR is liable to the quashed.
23. Mr. Guglani in support of his argument placed reliance to
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet
Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others 2013(11) SCC 673 by
placing reliance to paragraph-12 and 13, which are as under:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be
used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be
judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
11
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High
Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil
nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if
a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to
quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.
13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially
about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The
pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation
that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant
can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2’s attempt to
file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has
filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in
another case filed by respondent 2 against him alleging offence
under Section 406 of the IPC. Possession of the shop in question
has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2. In
such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending
criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The
High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.”
By placing reliance of aforesaid judgment, Mr. Guglani
submits impugned FIR is liable to be quashed since the society as
well as the complainant already preferred their respective suits
against each other i.e. Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025 and O.S. No. 297
of 2025. He submits that the allegations as alleged cannot be
presumed to be correct at this juncture since it will seriously
prejudice to either of the parties of pending suits and it will also
effect the ongoing proceeding of the pending suits.
Learned counsel submits that aforesaid judgment was
subsequently followed in the case of Randheer vs. State of U.P.
and Others 2021(14) SCC 626.
24. The next judgment as relied upon by Mr. Guglani is in the
case of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal
and Another 2023(15) SCC 135, wherein, the similar view has
been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as in the case of
Paramjeet Batra (supra), wherein, it has been held that High
Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceeding when
a civil remedy is available and is adopted.
12
25. Mr. Guglani submits that admittedly suit bearing O.S. No.
297 of 2025 was instituted by the respondent-complainant with
same set of allegations as alleged in the impugned FIR, therefore,
both the proceedings cannot be run together, and as such,
impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
26. Mr. Guglani also placed reliance to one more judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indermohan Goswami and
Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others 2021 (14) SCC 626,
wherein, it has been held that the court must ensure that criminal
prosecution is not used as instrument of harassment or for
seeking private vendetta or with ulterior motive to pressurize the
other side.
27. In response to the argument of Mr. Guglani, Mr. Arvind
Vasishtha, learned senior counsel for the respondent-
complainant, submits that the present case concerns a grave and
shocking breakdown of law and order since residential dwelling
house was demolished in an organized manner by stealing
valuable articles which appears to be complete disregard to the
rule of law and the petitioner being Area Secretary of the Society
with the assistance of his agents, accomplices entered into a
criminal conspiracy in order to demolish common wall of two
distinct property i.e. Modi Bhawan-1 and Modi Bhawan-2 and
dwelling house and after demolition the debris were also
removed from the site indicating a deliberate attempt to wipe out
the evidences, which is evident from the photographs. He
submits that the incident of demolition requires thorough
investigation. Mr. Vashistha also pointed out that in WPCRL No.
483 of 2025 there is categorical statement that group of persons
were present at the time when the incident took place.
13
28. Mr. Vashistha submits that the impugned FIR is lodged
pursuant to an order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate on an
application moved by the complainant under section 175(3) of
BNSS, 2023, therefore, on this account alone FIR cannot be
quashed.
29. Mr. Vashistha also submits that the SDM concerned instruct
for joint inspection as well as for demarcation, however, the
Revenue officials were prohibited from carrying out with the
process of demarcation, which itself reveals the unlaw conduct of
the petitioner.
30. Mr. Vashistha argued that the allegations as alleged in the
impugned FIR prima-facie discloses cognizable offences,
therefore proper investigation is required. He also submits that
Coordinate Bench already disposed of WPCRL No. 483 of 2025 in
terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar , therefore, the present case
should also be disposed of in terms of the said judgment.
31. Mr. Vashistha submits that the complete demolition of
dwelling house, removal of debris to erase evidence, and
organized theft of household articles, obstruction of public
authorities from demarcation clearly make out a case against the
petitioner, therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed and
the ongoing investigation in any manner will not prejudice to
either of the parties in the pending civil suits.
In support of his argument Mr. Vashistha placed reliance to
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others 2006 (6) SCC 736
and submits that the civil remedy does not bar criminal
14
prosecution and the court must examine whether civil dispute
have given a clock of criminal offence.
Next judgment as placed reliance by Mr. Vashistha is in the
case of Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others 2025 SCC
Online SC 1428 decided on 14.07.2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that there is no bar existed against criminal
prosecution during pendency of civil suit for an offence
punishable under criminal law.
Next judgment as relied upon by Mr. Vashistha is in the
case of 2020 (14) SCC 552
K. Jagadish vs. Udaya Kumar G.S.
decided on 06.10.2020, wherein, it has been held that even if civil
remedy is available and adopted by a party he cannot be
precluded from setting in motion the proceeding in criminal law
since the civil proceeding have nothing to do with criminal
proceeding when criminal offences are independently made out.
Another judgment as relied upon is in the case of S.N.
Vijay vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2025 Live Law SC 758
decided on 31.07.2025, wherein, it has been held that there is no
bar for instituting criminal proceeding if element of criminality
exist, however, in the absence of the element of criminality
allowing both the civil and criminal proceeding to continue
amounts to an abuse of process of law.
Another judgment as relied upon is State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Shilpa Jain and Others 2024 INSC 278 decided on
05.04.2024. By placing reliance on this Mr. Vashistha argued that
even if the underlying property rights originated in civil
arrangement the act of demolition, illegal trespass and theft
constitute a criminal metamorphosis of the dispute and, hence, it
15
cannot be said that the allegation as alleged attracts the civil
dispute.
32. Mr. Vashistha also relied upon the judgment in the case of
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021
(19) SCC 401, wherein, it has been held that the FIR is not an
encyclopedia which must discloses all facts and details relating to
the offences corroborated, therefore, when the investigation by
the police is in progress the court should not go into the merits of
the allegation in the FIR and police must be permitted to
complete the investigation and the High Court should refrain
from passing an order of no arrest or not to take any coercive
steps.
Mr. Vashistha submits that the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. is fully applicable in the present case and, therefore, the
petitioner does not deserve even for an interim protection and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Mr. Vashistha also refer one of the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Prem Raj vs Poonamma Menon 2024
INSC 260 decided on 06.03.2024 and submits that the criminal
proceedings should be given precedence over civil proceedings.
33. Mr. Vashistha also argued that the case of Paramjeet Batra
vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra) as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable since in the case of
Paramjeet Batra the dispute was essentially about business
transaction and shop tenancy which was purely a civil and
commercial dispute whereas in the present case the FIR alleges
demolition of a dwelling house, illegal trespass and theft of
16
articles, which is independent one to the dispute as raised in civil
suits.
In reference to the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another
(supra) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Vashistha submits that issue as involved relates to removal of
Secretary from an institution which is purely civil dispute,
therefore the said judgment is not applicable with the facts of
present case as the present case pertains to physical destruction of
building.
34. On the other side, Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned
A.G.A. for the State, on instructions, submits that after thorough
investigation now the final report has been submitted and no
criminality has been found, however, he has no instructions
whether the final report has been accepted or not.
35. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record as well as the judgment as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the parties.
36. No doubt the impugned FIR has been lodged pursuant to
an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on an application
moved by the respondent-complainant under section 175(3) of
BNSS, 2023, however, admitted position is that after registration
of impugned FIR both the parties already availed civil remedies.
The society namely RSSB filed Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025
impleading the respondent-complainant as defendant for seeking
permanent injunction for restraining the defendants and agents,
servants and employees from alienating, transferring or creating
any third party interest or to interfere with the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff, wherein, the reference of the incident
17
as alleged in the FIR has also been given and an interim
injunction is also granted by the civil court.
Apart from this the respondent-complainant in para-18 of
the counter affidavit also stated statement that under the garb of
order of temporary injunction construction is being raised and
respondent-complainant being defendant moved an application
for restraiing the plaintiff of the suit from raising construction,
wherein, Civil Court appoint Court Ameen and the matter is
subjudice and pending for consideration. The assertion to this
effect in the counter affidavit primarily reveals that the dispute
appears to be of civil in nature and if at this juncture the
investigation of the impugned FIR is permitted to continue then
certainly it will prejudice either of the party of the pending civil
suit.
The reference of Ameen’s report is also given in the counter
affidavit however this court cannot go into all these issues
particularly when Ameen’s report is under scrutiny and subject
matter of pending suit and giving any opinion on the Ameen’s
report at this stage will effect the pending civil suit, however this
court is of the view that the ongoing investigation pursuant to the
impugned FIR at this stage when both the parties availed civil
remedies is unwarranted.
37. Apart from this, respondent-complainant also instituted a
civil suit bearing O.S. No. 97 of 2025 titled as Beena Modi vs.
RSSB wherein, she is praying for possession as well as damages
of Rs. 10 lakhs towards demolition and stealing of articles and
also damages of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month from 14.02.2025 for
illegal possession till restoration of possession, which is still
pending for adjudication.
18
38. I gone through with the judgments as relied upon by the
learned counsel for both the parties and also fully agree with the
submissions as advanced by Mr. Vashistha, learned senior
counsel for the respondent-complainant, that the civil remedy
does not bar criminal prosecution, however, it is also settled
principle of law that the court should examine whether civil
dispute have given a clock of criminal offence and if the court
comes to the conclusion that the dispute is given a clock of
criminal offence, then the High Court should not hesitate to
quash the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse process of court.
39. Now, to examine the case in hand, this court carefully
scrutinize the reliefs as sought in both the suits more particularly
the reliefs as sought in O.S. No. 297 of 2025 filed by respondent-
complainant.
By relief ‘A’ the respondent-complainant is praying for the
possession over the suit property by directing the defendant to
handover the possession.
By relief ‘B’ she is praying for damages from the defendants
of Rs. 10 lakhs for demolition and the stolen of articles.
By relief ‘C’ she is praying for Rs. 2,50,000/- per month
from 14.02.2025 the date when the defendant got illegal
possession over the suit property till the date of possession.
By relief ‘D’ she is praying for permanent injunction against
the defendants for changing the nature of the suit property and
also raising any kind of construction.
The schedule of property as described in the plaint is the
same as mentioned in the impugned FIR. Now, the question is
19
once the respondent-complainant availed the civil remedy in
reference to the same property which is subject matter of the
impugned FIR then whether continuation of investigation does
not amount to procure an evidence to get benefit in pending civil
suit and furthermore at this stage when the civil suits are pending
in respect of the same property whether the investigation
pursuant to the impugned FIR is still warranted.
So far as another suit instituted by the Society i.e. Civil Suit
No. 169 of 2025 is concerned in the said suit permanent injunction
has been sought against the defendants the respondent-
complainant. The schedule of property as mentioned in the plaint
of said suit is also the same i.e. Modi Bhawan 1 and Modi
Bhawan 2, which according to the respondent-complainant are
two distinct properties, therefore, this court is of the view that
once both the parties already availed civil remedy by instituting
separate suits in respect of the same property then initiation of
criminal proceeding at this stage during the pendency of civil
suits are wholly unwarranted since outcome of the investigation
will seriously prejudice to either of the party of the pending civil
suits and will also have an impact on the merit of pending civil
suits.
Thus, in view of the discussion as above, this court is of the
view that investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR is wholly
unwarranted at this stage since the investigation at this stage to
somehow will effect the pending civil suits.
40. In view of the discussions as above, this court is of the view
that at this juncture when both the parties already availed civil
remedy by filing their respective civil suit in respect of the same
property, which is subject matter of impugned FIR, therefore, in
20
such an eventuality both the parties have to pursue their pending
civil suits and if final outcome of civil suits reveals any
criminality then both the parties are free to launch criminal
proceeding against each other but not at this stage when their
respective suits are still pending for adjudication. Therefore, this
court is of the view that continuation of investigation pursuant to
the impugned FIR at this stage is wholly unwarranted. Even
otherwise in view of the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Paramajeet Batra (supra) since both the parties already
adopted and avail the civil remedies which are pending for
adjudication, therefore, on account of this also continuation of the
investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR is not justifiable and
as such the impugned FIR deserve to be quashed.
41. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the
impugned FIR dated 22.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 18 of 2025 P.S.
Mussoorie, District Dehradun is also hereby quashed.
42. It is made clear that any observation or finding as above
will not come into the way of Trial Court in deciding the pending
suits i.e. Civil Suit No. 169 of 2025 and Civil Suit No. 297 of 2025
and the Trial Court is free to proceed with both the suits
independently without being influenced with the observation as
above.
43. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
26.05.2026
PR