Supreme Court Quashes Dacoity Charge After Full Settlement & Finds No Dishonest Intention

Case Name: Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2628 of 2025); 2025 INSC 1323
Date of Judgment/Order: 17 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Held: The Supreme Court held that the FIR’s allegations did not disclose the essential elements of robbery or dacoity, as the accused persons’ primary motive was to obtain certain institutional files and not to commit theft or cause wrongful gain. The Court found that the alleged acts—limited to slapping, pushing, and coercion to retrieve specific documents—did not reveal the “dishonest intention” required under Section 303 BNS (Section 378 IPC) to constitute theft, robbery, or dacoity. Additionally, the complete restitution of money, stamps, files, cheque books, and computers, as confirmed by the complainant’s affidavit, eliminated any basis for alleging wrongful loss. The Court held that once the High Court accepted compromise to quash all other offences arising from the same transaction, there was no legal justification to sustain prosecution for dacoity alone.

Summary: The FIR alleged that six to seven unknown persons entered P.G. Public School, Nandurbar, demanded BAMS and Engineering files, momentarily took possession of cheque books, computers, letterheads, and some cash, and used intimidation to compel staff to locate documents. No weapon use, grievous injury, or permanent appropriation of property was alleged. Before the Supreme Court, the complainant filed a voluntary affidavit stating that all items were returned, that no injury was caused to any person, and that the dispute had been amicably settled with the accused. The High Court partially quashed the FIR under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) but refused to quash the dacoity charge under Section 310(2) BNS (Section 395 IPC), accepting the school’s objection that the offence concerned institutional property. The Supreme Court held that the entire set of allegations formed a single inseparable transaction driven by a search for specific records, lacking the essential intent for theft or robbery. It emphasised that when compromise is accepted for all connected offences, sustaining the most serious charge based on identical facts is legally untenable.

Decision: The Supreme Court fully quashed FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024, holding that the continuation of proceedings for the dacoity offence under Section 310(2) BNS was unjustified given the absence of dishonest intention, complete restitution of property, and a genuine compromise acknowledged by the complainant. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings in entirety and allowed the appeal, disposing of all pending applications.