Section 394 IPC requires hurt to be caused in furtherance of theft; assault arising from a dispute does not constitute robbery.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-83 of 2015 registered at Gadh Police Station, Banaskantha, for offences under Sections 394, 325, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant alleged that, while he was ploughing a field with his tractor, the accused objected to his presence, abused him and assaulted him with an iron pipe and a stick.

It was further alleged that the accused persons restrained and beat him, and that ₹50,000 in his possession was lost during the incident.

The complainant subsequently gave a further statement alleging that accused Govindbhai had forcibly snatched ₹50,000 from his pocket.

During the proceedings, the petitioners confined their challenge to the offence under Section 394 IPC and did not press the petition in respect of the remaining offences.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent statement disclosed the ingredients of robbery and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, punishable under Section 394 IPC?

Whether the FIR could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC insofar as the offence under Section 394 IPC was concerned, while permitting the remaining offences to proceed?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to determine whether the allegations disclosed the commission of the alleged offence.

Section 394 IPC applies where hurt is voluntarily caused in committing or attempting to commit robbery.

The Court applied the ingredients of robbery under Section 390 IPC, namely, that the hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of instant hurt must be caused “for that end”—that is, for the purpose of committing theft, carrying away property obtained by theft, or facilitating such conduct.

The Court relied on Dharmendrabhai Nandubhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLH 739, and the principle stated in Himatsing Shivsing v. State of Gujarat, 1961 GLR 678, that violence occurring during the same transaction as theft does not constitute robbery unless it was inflicted for the purpose of committing or carrying away the stolen property.

The FIR indicated that the confrontation originated from a dispute over the complainant’s ploughing and watering of the field, and that the assault was allegedly committed because of that dispute.

The Court found no averment or material showing that the accused had entered the field with an intention to commit robbery or that the assault was inflicted to facilitate theft or the carrying away of property.

Even assuming the subsequent statement alleging forcible snatching of ₹50,000 was taken into account, the Court considered it an improvement over the original FIR and held that it did not establish the necessary causal connection between the assault and the alleged theft required by Section 390 IPC.

Accordingly, the essential ingredient for attracting Section 394 IPC—hurt caused for the purpose of committing robbery—was absent.

The proceedings relating to Sections 325, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC were not quashed and were permitted to continue in accordance with law.

Rule was made absolute to that limited extent.