Pursue Civil Remedies First: Uttarakhand HC Sets Aside FIR Alleging Demolition, Theft & Encroachment Of Mussoorie's Modi Bhawan
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an FIR registered against persons connected with Radha Swami Satsang Beas (RSSB) in relation to allegations concerning demolition of 'Modi Bhawan', theft of valuable articles and encroachment over the property.
“Once both the parties (have) 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”, the Court held.
Hence, holding that the continuation of the investigation pursuant to the FIR was “wholly unwarranted” during the pendency of those suits and would seriously prejudice the parties in the pending proceedings, the Court held that the parties must pursue their respective civil remedies. It further observed that if the final outcome of the civil suits reveals any criminality, the parties would be free to launch criminal proceedings in accordance with law.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal was dealing with two writ petitions seeking quashing of an FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with the Modi Bhawan property situated in Mussoorie.
The FIR was lodged by the respondent-complainant, who claimed to be a co-owner of Modi Bhawan-I. According to the FIR, the property was demolished on 14.02.2025, valuable household articles, furniture and paintings lying inside the property were stolen away, and persons connected with RSSB had encroached upon and taken possession of the property.
It was alleged that despite approaching the police authorities, no action was taken. Consequently, an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS was filed, pursuant to which registration of the FIR was directed.
The petitioners contended that the dispute essentially related to property and that no specific role had been assigned to them in the FIR. It was submitted that RSSB had purchased the property through a registered sale deed in 2001 and that the allegations regarding demolition were false.
It was further submitted that both sides had already instituted civil suits concerning the same property. Reliance was placed on decisions including Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand to contend that where a dispute is essentially civil in nature and civil remedies have already been adopted, continuation of criminal proceedings may amount to abuse of process.
Conversely, the respondent-complainant contended that the matter was not merely a property dispute but involved demolition of a dwelling house, theft of valuable articles, illegal trespass and encroachment- allegations all disclosing cognizable offences requiring investigation.
It was further submitted that the impugned FIR had been registered pursuant to an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. According to the respondent- complainant, on this ground alone the FIR could not be quashed.
Reliance was placed on various Supreme Court decisions to submit that the availability of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations independently disclose criminal offences.
The Court noted that “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” with the RSSB having instituted a civil suit seeking permanent injunction in relation to the property, and the respondent- complainant instituted a separate suit seeking possession of the property, damages for demolition and stolen articles, mesne profits and permanent injunction.
The Court observed that the same property which formed the subject matter of the FIR was also the subject matter of the pending civil suits. It further noted that the complainant had sought damages for demolition and theft of articles in the civil suit itself.
While agreeing with the principle that civil remedies do not bar criminal prosecution, the Court reiterated that it must examine whether a civil dispute has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Referring to Paramjeet Batra, the Court observed that where parties have already adopted civil remedies, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.
“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 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” , the Court held.
Accordingly, both writ petitions were allowed and the impugned FIR was quashed. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect adjudication of the pending civil suits, which would be decided independently on their own merits.
Case Name: Ajay Kumar Sikri v State of Uttarakhand and Ors
Case No.: Writ Petition (Crl) No. 365 of 2025