The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a criminal case arising out of a long-running dispute over the Modi Bhawan property in Mussoorie, observing that both sides had already approached civil courts and that continuation of the criminal investigation at this stage was not justified.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal passed the order while allowing two connected writ petitions filed by Ajay Kumar Sikri and Hari Ram Sharma challenging an FIR registered at Mussoorie Police Station in April 2025.
Background of the Case
The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Beena Modi, who claimed to be a co-owner of a property known as Modi Bhawan-I at Camel Back Road, Mussoorie. She alleged that the property had been demolished, valuable household articles were removed, and possession was unlawfully taken over as part of a conspiracy involving several persons.
According to the complaint, the alleged acts caused substantial financial loss and led her to seek registration of a criminal case after police allegedly failed to act on earlier representations. The FIR was ultimately registered pursuant to a Magistrate's order.
The petitioners, however, argued that the dispute was essentially about ownership and possession of property. They contended that the property had been purchased by Radha Swami Satsang Beas through a registered sale deed in 2001 and that the allegations were being used to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.
Civil Suits Already Pending
During the hearing, the Court noted that both sides had already initiated civil proceedings concerning the same property.
One suit was filed by the society seeking protection of its possession and restraining interference. Another suit was filed by Beena Modi seeking possession of the property, damages for alleged demolition and loss of articles, compensation for alleged illegal occupation, and a permanent injunction against further construction.
The Court observed that the reliefs sought in the civil suit substantially overlapped with the allegations made in the FIR.
Court's Observations
Justice Thapliyal acknowledged the settled legal position that the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically bar criminal proceedings. However, the Court emphasized that it must examine whether a dispute that is essentially civil has been given a criminal character.
The Court observed:
“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 bench further noted that both parties had already chosen civil remedies concerning the same property and that findings emerging from a criminal investigation could affect the merits of the pending civil suits.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that where parties have already adopted civil remedies and the controversy primarily revolves around property rights, continuation of criminal proceedings may amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Decision
Allowing both writ petitions, the High Court quashed FIR No. 18 of 2025 registered at Mussoorie Police Station, Dehradun district.
The Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court while deciding the pending civil suits and directed that both cases be adjudicated independently on their own merits.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Sikri v. State of Uttarakhand & Others (Connected with Hari Ram Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Others)
Case Number: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 365 of 2025 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 453 of 2025
Judge: Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Decision Date: 26 May 2026
