IMPORTANT POINT
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 allowing for a thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT :

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 23.04.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0274 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 Modi Charitable Fund Society is a registered society and Sandeep Kumar Yadav is Secretary of the same. Modi Industries Ltd., is a registered company and Umesh Kumar Modi is its Managing Director and petitioner no. 1 is Company Secretary of the same. Various education institutions are being run by the aforesaid society and their records are kept in the office of society situated at Modi Bhawan, Modi Nagar. The petitioners and other employees of Modi Industries Ltd., demolished the entire office of society and destroyed the records kept therein and also committed the robbery of valuable goods kept in the office and hence the FIR was lodged.

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 bc 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 K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1297) 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. D.K. 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 the suit to enforce the said settlement could not be withdrawn is also fallacious. The above statement has been read out of context and relied upon as a finding/determination of fact by the Apex Court, though it was only recorded as a submission made on behalf of the Group A parties. The Court instead of commenting on the said submission, directed the parties to raise the same before the High Court. The said paragraph from the copy of the judgment placed amongst the order sheets in the Part 1 file of suit no. 1394/96 is reproduced he