Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Siddharth, Hon’ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, JJ.
Shobit Nehra And Another – Petitioners
Versus
State Of UP And Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 7464 of 2024
Decided On : 10-07-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - IPC SECTIONS 436, 450, 392, 120-B - The court discussed the applicability of IPC Sections 436 (mischief by fire or explosive), 450 (house-trespass in order to commit offence), 392 (robbery), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). It interpreted these sections in the context of a civil dispute between family members, emphasizing that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence. The court highlighted the need for a thorough investigation while protecting the petitioners' right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, ultimately deciding to prevent their arrest until the investigation was concluded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR alleging serious criminal offences, including robbery and arson, against them in the context of a family dispute over property and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) from 1989. The FIR was filed by Dr. D.K. Modi, who claimed that the petitioners were attempting to destroy evidence related to ongoing civil litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR were primarily civil in nature and lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of criminal activity. It noted that the FIR appeared to be an attempt to exert pressure on the petitioners amidst ongoing civil disputes.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence under the IPC sections cited, and whether the petitioners' right to liberty should be protected during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while there may be a civil dispute, if criminal allegations arise during such disputes, they must be investigated. However, the FIR's allegations were deemed insufficient to warrant arrest, given the context of the ongoing civil litigation and the potential for false implications.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by directing that the petitioners should not be arrested until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate with the investigation.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Chaudhary and Sri Salil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 & 2 and Sri Vinay Sharan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 20.04.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0265 of 2024, under Sections-436, 450, 392 and 120-B IPC, Police Station-Modi Nagar, District-Commissionerate Ghaziabad (Rural), and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. There is allegation in the FIR that Multanimal Modi Degree College Society is a registered society and Sandeep Kumar Yadav is Secretary of the same. Modi Industries Limited is a registered company and Mr. Umesh Kumar Modi is its Managing Director of the same and petitioner no. 1 is its Company Secretary. Various educational institutions are being run by the society aforesaid and most of the records of society were kept in the office of society at Modi Bhawan, Modi Nagar. Officials of Modi Industries Limited, including the petitioners were breaking the roof of the aforesaid office and were threatening to wipe off the same. On application by informant, police stopped the demolition of the same on 10.12.2022. The petitioners and other employees of the Modi Industries Limited set on fire the records of society and robbed other goods kept in office so that the evidence in the on going civil suit between the parties may be destroyed. When the court Amin visited the disputed office of society, he found two locks on the office. One was opened but the employees of Modi Industries Limited had put another lock which they refused to open. The above act of the petitioners amounts to commission of crime of robbery.
4. The brief facts pleaded in the present case are as follows :-
5. The dispute essentially arises because of a long-standing family dispute between the Modi Family. There was a MoU dated 24.01.1989 which was entered in between the various members of the Modi Family. In the said MoU there was an attempt made by various members of the Modi Group to settle their inter-se disputes which includes various properties belonging to various family trusts and societies.
6. Subsequently, disputes arose between members of the Modi family for the enforcement of MoU 1989 which traveled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1297) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that there are various suits which arc pending adjudication for the enforcement of she MoU 1989 before the Delhi High Court and those issues should be raised and decided before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Copy of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in the case of (K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi & others) has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.
7. Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 05.10.2007 (in the matter of K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi & others i.e. CS (0S) No, 1394 /1996 and MK Modi vs. KK Modi & Ors. i.e. CS (OS) No. 434/1998) gave a categorical finding that the Hon'ble Supreme Court (in the matter of KK Modi vs. KN Modi & Ors. -AIR 1998 SCI297) had not decided the validity of the MoU of 1989 and in fact had only recorded the submissions made by some members of the Modi Family belonging to Group A. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. DK Modi who is running the Multanimal Degree College Society is part of Group A of the Modi family. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:
"38. The argument that the Apex Court had held the MOU had been substantially acted upon by the parties, and they must be held to the settlement and for that reason t
AI
The court established that in cases where allegations in an FIR may be fabricated or exaggerated to exert pressure in a civil dispute, the right to liberty of the accused must be safeguarded while al....
The court affirmed that serious fraud allegations necessitate custodial interrogation, and delay in FIR does not negate the urgency for investigation.
Set of acts or omissions may constitute offences under different enactments and where there are two distinct offences disclosed, made up of different ingredients, punishment in both would be permissi....
The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation based on prima facie evidence of forgery, and highlighted the balance between personal liberty and societal interest in granting anticipatory....
The court upheld the right to anticipatory bail based on the absence of prior criminal history and the familial nature of the dispute, emphasizing fair treatment in legal proceedings.
(1) Registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge.(2) Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
