Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1323
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025)
PRASHANT PRAKASH
RATNAPARKI AND ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal by special leave takes
st
exception to the order dated 31 January, 2025
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
1
Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application No. 4528
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.11.17
16:22:14 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
1
of 2024. By the aforesaid order, the High Court
partially allowed the petition filed by the appellants
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
2
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding to Section
3
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ] 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
4
Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 326, 506
5
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
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].
2
For short, “BNSS”.
3
For short, “CrPC”.
4
For short, “BNS”.
5
For short, “IPC”.
2
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
4. The afore-stated FIR came to be lodged by
respondent No.2-complainant with the following
allegations: -
“My name is Rajendra Pura Rathod aged 44
years, Occupation Service, Address AT & PO
Chowpale Taluka District Nandurbar Mobile
No. 8390270785.
I have personally come before the police
station and narrate the facts of my complain
that I am living with my family at the above
mentioned address, and, since the year 2006
I am employed as Senior Clerk at P. G. Public
School, Chowpale Taluka District
Nandurbar. As per daily routine on
04/10/2024 at 08:00 am I attended the P. G.
Public School, Chowpale, Taluka District at
Nandurbar. Thereafter (02) Zubair Khalil
Shaikh, Bus Manager, (03) Khandu Chindhu
Sarode, Senior Clerk and Organization
Secretary, also came. Thereafter at around
08.15 hrs a white colored Kia Sonet car of UP
passing and Mehndi Green coloured Ertiga
MH 04 full number not known approached
near the entrance gate of our office. 2 such
cars had arrived. From those cars 6 to 7
unknown persons descended from the cars
and came into the office. I was waiting at the
cash counter. So when I asked them what do
they want so one of them asked where is your
Principal Sir, I told them that I will call the
Principal Sir, at the same time that person
grabbed my mobile phone and pushed me
when Zuber Sheikh came, they also took his
mobile phone. That person grabbed the collar
3
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
of my shirt and Zubair Shaikh and asked us
both where are your Engineering and
B.A.M.S. files. He was threatening saying
where are the files kept. After that, when we
said that we don't have any files, that person
slapped me on the ear and took us to the
chairman's hall and forcefully asked us to
remove the files from the cupboard there.
When we said that we don't have the key,
they abused us and opened the drawer of the
table in the chairman's hall, when they saw
the key of the cupboard and the
organization's cheque book, they took the
cheque book with them they and gave the key
to me and forced me to open the cupboard.
In the meanwhile, one of them was shooting
a video on his mobile phone. After I placed
the file in the cupboard on the table, he
checked the said file and among those files
they did not see the B.A.M.S. college files.
Then he opened the other drawer of the table.
In it, there was the salary of the school
teachers amounting to one and half lakh
rupees and P. G. Public School one whole
book of blank letter pads of the organization
was taken out and taken into their custody.
The first two pages of the pad of the said
letter were signed by me and Zubair Shaikh
and the seals of the said organization were
also impressed thereon. After that he asked
us to show them the BAMS office from us. So
we took him to the BAMS office. Where is the
office he shouted loudly, so hearing him also
Jagdish Khandare Sir, Rohit Mahale Sir
came from the school. The accused also
threatened him and took away his mobile
phone. One of those persons named Girish
4
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
was told to show your B.A.M.S. office. And
was saying to show the office, Girish takes
B.A.M.S. with him. After that the said
persons came back with Girish. Then that
person had B.A.M.S. 5 to 6 files with him. At
the same time Principal Shri Anand Suresh
Pardeshi Sir came. One of these persons
questioned Anand Sir and sat with Anand Sir
in the principal's hall. After that, one of those
persons also went to the principal's hall.
When Anand Sir asked him about his
identity, he did not give any additional
identity. Also Rs. 20,000 which he kept in the
cash table was also taken. After that
computer of HP CBIN 1970 of P. G. Public
School, Chowpale Taluka District, Computer
with full data saved of Nandurbar
organization were forcibly taken from us.
Those persons forcibly took the files from us.
They made Girish to keep it in their Kia car.
After that they took all the computers forcibly
removed from our office, blank letter pad
book of the organization, check book of the
organization, all the stamps of the
organization and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and
kept with them in their car. They forbade us
to come out of the office, Principal Anand Sir
went near him, they threatened to kill Anand
Sir and kidnap his children and students if
he told anyone about the incident.
Therefore, this is my complaint against them
for taking legal action them.”
5. The matter was settled amicably between the
accused and respondent No.2-complainant. The High
5
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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
st
dated 31 January, 2025 directed that the
proceedings arising out of the FIR would continue in
6
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
Findings and Conclusion
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned order and the material placed
on record.
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.
7
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
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
8
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
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
9
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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
10
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
‘dishonest intention’ required to constitute theft, and
by extension, robbery or dacoity.
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.
11
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
13. Once the High Court exercised its inherent
jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the
offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2),
351(3), and 352 of the BNS [Sections 326, 506 and
504 of the IPC], on the basis of the voluntary affidavit
of respondent No.2-complainant, there was no
justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for
the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the
BNS [Section 395 of the IPC]. The factual matrix
forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable
and arises from a single transaction. The compromise
that was accepted as genuine and sufficient to quash
the other offences equally dilutes the foundation of
the charge of dacoity, which rests on the same set of
allegations and circumstances.
14. In this background, we are of the considered
view that the continued partial prosecution of the
appellants for the offence of dacoity punishable
12
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
16. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 17, 2025.
13
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025)
PRASHANT PRAKASH
RATNAPARKI AND ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal by special leave takes
st
exception to the order dated 31 January, 2025
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
1
Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application No. 4528
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.11.17
16:22:14 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
1
of 2024. By the aforesaid order, the High Court
partially allowed the petition filed by the appellants
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
2
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding to Section
3
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ] 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
4
Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 326, 506
5
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
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].
2
For short, “BNSS”.
3
For short, “CrPC”.
4
For short, “BNS”.
5
For short, “IPC”.
2
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
4. The afore-stated FIR came to be lodged by
respondent No.2-complainant with the following
allegations: -
“My name is Rajendra Pura Rathod aged 44
years, Occupation Service, Address AT & PO
Chowpale Taluka District Nandurbar Mobile
No. 8390270785.
I have personally come before the police
station and narrate the facts of my complain
that I am living with my family at the above
mentioned address, and, since the year 2006
I am employed as Senior Clerk at P. G. Public
School, Chowpale Taluka District
Nandurbar. As per daily routine on
04/10/2024 at 08:00 am I attended the P. G.
Public School, Chowpale, Taluka District at
Nandurbar. Thereafter (02) Zubair Khalil
Shaikh, Bus Manager, (03) Khandu Chindhu
Sarode, Senior Clerk and Organization
Secretary, also came. Thereafter at around
08.15 hrs a white colored Kia Sonet car of UP
passing and Mehndi Green coloured Ertiga
MH 04 full number not known approached
near the entrance gate of our office. 2 such
cars had arrived. From those cars 6 to 7
unknown persons descended from the cars
and came into the office. I was waiting at the
cash counter. So when I asked them what do
they want so one of them asked where is your
Principal Sir, I told them that I will call the
Principal Sir, at the same time that person
grabbed my mobile phone and pushed me
when Zuber Sheikh came, they also took his
mobile phone. That person grabbed the collar
3
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
of my shirt and Zubair Shaikh and asked us
both where are your Engineering and
B.A.M.S. files. He was threatening saying
where are the files kept. After that, when we
said that we don't have any files, that person
slapped me on the ear and took us to the
chairman's hall and forcefully asked us to
remove the files from the cupboard there.
When we said that we don't have the key,
they abused us and opened the drawer of the
table in the chairman's hall, when they saw
the key of the cupboard and the
organization's cheque book, they took the
cheque book with them they and gave the key
to me and forced me to open the cupboard.
In the meanwhile, one of them was shooting
a video on his mobile phone. After I placed
the file in the cupboard on the table, he
checked the said file and among those files
they did not see the B.A.M.S. college files.
Then he opened the other drawer of the table.
In it, there was the salary of the school
teachers amounting to one and half lakh
rupees and P. G. Public School one whole
book of blank letter pads of the organization
was taken out and taken into their custody.
The first two pages of the pad of the said
letter were signed by me and Zubair Shaikh
and the seals of the said organization were
also impressed thereon. After that he asked
us to show them the BAMS office from us. So
we took him to the BAMS office. Where is the
office he shouted loudly, so hearing him also
Jagdish Khandare Sir, Rohit Mahale Sir
came from the school. The accused also
threatened him and took away his mobile
phone. One of those persons named Girish
4
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
was told to show your B.A.M.S. office. And
was saying to show the office, Girish takes
B.A.M.S. with him. After that the said
persons came back with Girish. Then that
person had B.A.M.S. 5 to 6 files with him. At
the same time Principal Shri Anand Suresh
Pardeshi Sir came. One of these persons
questioned Anand Sir and sat with Anand Sir
in the principal's hall. After that, one of those
persons also went to the principal's hall.
When Anand Sir asked him about his
identity, he did not give any additional
identity. Also Rs. 20,000 which he kept in the
cash table was also taken. After that
computer of HP CBIN 1970 of P. G. Public
School, Chowpale Taluka District, Computer
with full data saved of Nandurbar
organization were forcibly taken from us.
Those persons forcibly took the files from us.
They made Girish to keep it in their Kia car.
After that they took all the computers forcibly
removed from our office, blank letter pad
book of the organization, check book of the
organization, all the stamps of the
organization and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and
kept with them in their car. They forbade us
to come out of the office, Principal Anand Sir
went near him, they threatened to kill Anand
Sir and kidnap his children and students if
he told anyone about the incident.
Therefore, this is my complaint against them
for taking legal action them.”
5. The matter was settled amicably between the
accused and respondent No.2-complainant. The High
5
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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
st
dated 31 January, 2025 directed that the
proceedings arising out of the FIR would continue in
6
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
Findings and Conclusion
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned order and the material placed
on record.
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.
7
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
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
8
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
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
9
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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
10
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
‘dishonest intention’ required to constitute theft, and
by extension, robbery or dacoity.
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.
11
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
13. Once the High Court exercised its inherent
jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the
offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2),
351(3), and 352 of the BNS [Sections 326, 506 and
504 of the IPC], on the basis of the voluntary affidavit
of respondent No.2-complainant, there was no
justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for
the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the
BNS [Section 395 of the IPC]. The factual matrix
forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable
and arises from a single transaction. The compromise
that was accepted as genuine and sufficient to quash
the other offences equally dilutes the foundation of
the charge of dacoity, which rests on the same set of
allegations and circumstances.
14. In this background, we are of the considered
view that the continued partial prosecution of the
appellants for the offence of dacoity punishable
12
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025
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.
16. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 17, 2025.
13
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025