Mere assembly and post-arrest confessions alone do not establish preparation for dacoity.

The petitioner, Accused No. 6 in Crime No. 276 of 2019, sought to quash the FIR alleging offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR alleged that nine persons, including the petitioner, were found near Dindigul Railway Station Goodshed with knives, wooden logs and chilli powder, and had assembled to plan robberies.

The petitioner contended that the case was false and that the statutory ingredients were not made out.

The State submitted that a final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate on 10 December 2019 had been returned for correction and had not been re-presented.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC against the petitioner

2. Whether continuing the investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing of the FIR

Sections 399 and 402 IPC concern, respectively, making preparation to commit dacoity and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity.

The Court applied the quashing principle in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly Category V, under which proceedings may be quashed where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude that sufficient grounds exist to proceed.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court considered that the prosecution’s case of preparation for dacoity depended on the accused persons’ alleged confessions after arrest; excluding those confessions, the remaining allegation was that nine persons were together near the railway-station goodshed.

It noted that the FIR did not explain how four police personnel apprehended nine accused without resistance, injury or escape, and that no independent witness had signed the seizure mahazar despite the location being near a busy railway station.

The Court also found no specific overt act, prior association or distinct planning role attributed to the petitioner.

In those circumstances, it held that the ingredients of Sections 399 and 402 IPC were not made out and that the case fell within Category V of Bhajan Lal.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.