Appeal
Appeal against the partly order quashing some offences in the FIR
3. The present appeal by special leave takes exception to the order dated 31st January, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench1 in Criminal Application No. 4528 of 2024. By the aforesaid order, the High Court partially allowed the petition filed by the appellants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 [Corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733] and quashed the FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024, P.S. Nandurbar Taluka, District Nandurbar, to the extent of the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234 [Corresponding Sections 326, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 respectively]. However, the proceedings arising from the said FIR were permitted to be continued in respect of the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC].
5. The matter was settled amicably between the accused and respondent No.2-complainant. The High Court, while partially allowing the quashing petition filed under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC], was of the opinion that in exercise of its inherent powers, the FIR could be quashed on the basis of a compromise insofar as the offences were personal to the complainant. However, the High Court refrained from quashing the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC], on the ground that it was not an offence personal to the complainant, as the alleged act had occurred within the premises of the school and pertained to its property. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court took into account the objections raised on behalf of the school, which asserted that it was the victim of the alleged offending act. Accordingly, the High Court vide impugned order dated 31st January, 2025 directed that the proceedings arising out of the FIR would continue in respect of offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC].
6. The accused are before us questioning the legality of the aforesaid order.
Respondent2/complainant has filed an affidavit stating that appellants had returned all the money
8. In pursuance of the notices issued to the respondents, State of Maharashtra-respondent No.1 did not file any counter-affidavit, whereas, respondent No.2-complainant has filed an affidavit wherein, he has stated that the appellants had returned all the money, blank cheque book, letter heads, stamps, files, and other materials belonging to the school to him. He has stated that no injury was caused to him or any other person by the appellants. He has further mentioned that upon intervention of the society members and elders, he has amicably settled all the disputes and events set out in the FIR with the accused arraigned therein, and that he was not desirous of continuing with the prosecution against the appellants.
No allegation in the FIR that accused persons were armed with weapons or caused any serious injury to anyone
9. On going through the entire FIR, we find that the same was initially registered against unknown persons. The thrust of the allegations, as set out in the FIR, is that the 6 to 7 unknown individuals had entered the premises of P.G. Public School in search of certain Engineering and B.A.M.S. files. During the course of this incident, these individuals allegedly took possession of a cheque book, certain blank letterheads, stamps, files, and certain amount of money that was later stated to have been returned. The FIR itself discloses that the accused persons were primarily seeking access to specific institutional records viz. Engineering and B.A.M.S. files, and had no intention to steal cash or property belonging to the institution. There is no allegation that the accused persons were armed with weapons or that they caused any serious injury to anyone. The alleged acts appear to have arisen out of a dispute concerning possession of certain documents rather than from any intention to commit dacoity.
To prove dacoity the offence of robbery must first be established in the case on hand settlement between the parties dilutes the allegation of ‘dishonest intention’ leading to dacoity hence matter quashed
10. To sustain a charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC], the offence of robbery [Section 309 of the BNS/Section 392 of the IPC] must first be established. Robbery, in turn, is an aggravated form of theft or extortion. A foundational element of ‘theft’ as defined under Section 303 of the BNS [Section 378 of the IPC] is ‘dishonest intention’, i.e., the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. In the present case, the primary motive, as discernible from the FIR was not to permanently deprive the school of its property for wrongful gain. The alleged acts of violence i.e. slapping, pushing and intimidation were, by respondent No.2-complainant’s own account, employed to compel the staff to locate and produce engineering and B.A.M.S. files. The taking of cash, cheque books, and the computer appears incidental to this main purpose and not the primary object of the intrusion. This conclusion is significantly fortified by the voluntary affidavit filed by respondent No. 2- complainant, who confirms that all money, files, and other materials were subsequently returned to him and that there was no harm or injury caused to anyone and that an amicable settlement has been reached. This complete restitution and amicable settlement between the accused and respondent No.2-complainant completely dilutes the allegation of ‘dishonest intention’ required to constitute theft, and by extension, robbery or dacoity.
Hon’ble High Court must have quashed the entire FIR
11. The High Court, in our considered view, erred in sustaining the objection raised by the school and in proceeding on the premise that the offence of dacoity was not personal to respondent No.2-complainant, who had already settled the dispute with the accused persons.
12. The contents of the FIR clearly indicate that the primary motive of the accused persons was to retrieve specific institutional files/information and not to seek any wrongful gain. This, coupled with the subsequent and complete return of all property, a fact affirmed by respondent No.2-complainant in his voluntary affidavit submitted before the High Court as well as before this Court, convinces us that it is a fit case warranting quashing of the complaint/FIR as a whole.
Conclusion
FIR quashed
14. In this background, we are of the considered view that the continued partial prosecution of the appellants for the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC] in connection with FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024 is unjustified and deserves to be quashed.
15. Thus, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we hereby quash the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof in entirety.
Party
Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr - Criminal Appeal No(s). 4896 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2628 of 2025) - 2025 INSC 1323 - November 17, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, J. and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, J.
