Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against one director, holds no prima facie case under Sections 354/506 IPC

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal by special leave against a Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench order that had partially quashed an FIR but retained the charge of dacoity. The appellants challenged the High Court's decision to allow proceedings to continue under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 395 IPC), while quashing several other offences on the basis of a compromise with the complainant.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024 and all consequent proceedings in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court held that the factual matrix of all offences arose from a single transaction and that the voluntary settlement, complete restitution and return of property by the accused to the complainant substantially eroded the essential element of "dishonest intention" required for theft, robbery and thus dacoity. The Court noted that the FIR disclosed that the intruders "were primarily seeking access to specific institutional records" and that the taking of cash and other items appeared "incidental" rather than the primary object. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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… 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… 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.” The Court described the matter as a "fit case warranting quashing of the complaint/FIR as a whole" and concluded there was "no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for the offence punishable under Section 310(2)".

Background
The FIR was lodged by a school employee alleging that six to seven unknown persons entered school premises, forcibly searched for Engineering and B.A.M.S. files, assaulted staff (slapping and pushing), took mobile phones, a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, certain cash and computers, and threatened the principal. The High Court had entertained the appellants' petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) and quashed counts corresponding to Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 BNS (corresponding to IPC Sections 326, 506, 504) on the basis of compromise with the complainant, but retained the dacoity charge on the ground that it affected the school as victim and was not merely a personal offence. The State did not file a counter-affidavit before this Court; the complainant filed a voluntary affidavit stating that all money, cheque book, letterheads, stamps, files and other materials were returned, no injury was caused, and the dispute was amicably settled. The Supreme Court analysed statutory definitions of theft, robbery and dacoity and applied them to the facts recorded in the FIR and the complainant's affidavit. Finding that the transaction arose from a single set of circumstances and that restitution and compromise removed the essential element of dishonest intention, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to quash the FIR in entirety. The appeal was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2025 INSC 1323 (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2628 of 2025)
Case Title: Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.