☰
×
0  17 Nov, 2025
Listen in 2:00 mins | Read in 19:05 mins
EN
HI

Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki And Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Anr.

  Supreme Court Of India Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of
Link copied!

Case Background

As per case facts, an FIR was lodged against the appellants for offenses, including dacoity, alleging they forcibly entered a school office, assaulted staff, and took files, cash, and a ...

Bench
Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊
Disclaimer: We do not store your data.
Document Text Version

2025 INSC 1323 1

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

exception to the order dated 31

st January, 2025

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

Aurangabad Bench

1 in Criminal Application No. 4528

1

Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.

2

Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025

of 2024. By the aforesaid order, the High Court

partially allowed the petition filed by the appellants

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

2 [Corresponding to Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3] 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

Sanhita, 2023

4 [Corresponding Sections 326, 506

and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

5

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”.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

dated 31

st January, 2025 directed that the

proceedings arising out of the FIR would continue in

7

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.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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.

12

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

13

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.

Reference cases

Description

Supreme Court Quashes Dacoity Charges: Emphasizing 'Dishonest Intention' in Amicable Settlements

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of **Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.** This case, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2628 of 2025, underscores the **Supreme Court's power to quash FIRs** and the critical role of ‘dishonest intention’ in establishing serious offenses like dacoity. This particular decision, now available for in-depth analysis on CaseOn, provides crucial insights into the application of inherent powers to ensure justice, especially when an **amicable settlement impacts dacoity charges under BNS**.

Case Background: The FIR Allegations

The original complaint, filed by Rajendra Pura Rathod, a senior clerk at P.G. Public School, detailed an incident on October 4, 2024. According to the FIR, 6 to 7 unknown individuals arrived at the school in two cars. They entered the office, confronted the complainant and other staff, grabbed their mobile phones, and resorted to pushing, slapping, and intimidation. Their primary demand was to locate and produce certain Engineering and B.A.M.S. files. During the chaotic incident, the accused allegedly took a cheque book, blank letter pads, stamps, a computer, and Rs. 1.5 lakhs in cash. They also reportedly threatened the Principal, Anand Sir.

The High Court's Decision: A Partial Quashing

Based on a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, partially allowed the quashing of the FIR (C.R. No. 270 of 2024). The High Court quashed offenses punishable under BNSS Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 (corresponding to IPC Sections 326, 506, and 504 respectively). However, the High Court refrained from quashing the offense of dacoity, punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Section 395 of the IPC). The reasoning was that dacoity was not an offense personal to the complainant but involved the school's property and premises, with the school itself raising objections.

Issue: Can Dacoity Charges Be Quashed on Settlement?

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the dacoity charge (Section 310(2) BNS / Section 395 IPC) when an amicable settlement had been reached between the complainant and the accused, especially when the alleged 'dishonest intention' – a fundamental element of the offense – appeared to be absent.

Rule: Inherent Powers and the Element of 'Dishonest Intention'

  • **Inherent Powers:** Both the High Courts (under Section 528 BNSS / 482 CrPC) and the Supreme Court (under Article 142 of the Constitution) possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
  • **Dacoity (Section 310(2) BNS / Section 395 IPC):** This offense is an aggravated form of robbery, which itself is an aggravated form of theft or extortion.
  • **Theft (Section 303 BNS / Section 378 IPC):** A foundational element of theft is 'dishonest intention' – the intent to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. Without this primary element, the charge of theft, and by extension, robbery or dacoity, cannot be sustained.
  • **Amicable Settlement:** The courts often consider amicable settlements in quashing proceedings, particularly for offenses that are primarily personal in nature or where the public interest does not strictly demand continuation.

Analysis: Supreme Court's Emphasis on Motive and Restitution

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the FIR and the subsequent affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant confirmed that all money, files, blank cheque books, letterheads, and other materials belonging to the school had been returned by the appellants. He also stated that no injury was caused to him or any other person, and that, following the intervention of society members and elders, he had amicably settled all disputes and was no longer desirous of pursuing prosecution. Crucially, the Court observed that the primary thrust of the FIR's allegations suggested that the accused were primarily seeking access to specific institutional records (Engineering and B.A.M.S. files). The taking of cash, cheque books, and the computer appeared incidental to this main purpose, not the primary object of the intrusion. There was no allegation that the accused were armed or caused serious injury, and the acts of violence (slapping, pushing, intimidation) were aimed at compelling staff to produce documents. The Court highlighted the absence of 'dishonest intention' – a sine qua non for theft, and consequently, for robbery and dacoity. The motive was not to permanently deprive the school of its property for wrongful gain. The complete restitution of all items and the amicable settlement further solidified the argument against a 'dishonest intention'. The Court reasoned that the factual matrix forming the basis of all alleged offenses was inseparable, and therefore, the compromise accepted for the other offenses should logically apply to the dacoity charge as well, especially when the fundamental element of 'dishonest intention' was diluted. For legal professionals looking to quickly grasp the nuances of such rulings, CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs offer an invaluable tool, enabling efficient analysis of complex judgments and their implications.

Conclusion: FIR Quashed in Entirety

Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in sustaining the dacoity charge. Given the absence of 'dishonest intention' and the comprehensive amicable settlement, the continued partial prosecution of the appellants for dacoity was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising from it in their entirety.

Why This Judgment is an Important Read for Lawyers and Students

This judgment is a crucial precedent for several reasons:
  • **Clarification on 'Dishonest Intention':** It reinforces the paramount importance of 'dishonest intention' as a foundational element for offenses like theft, robbery, and dacoity, demonstrating that mere taking of property without this specific intent may not constitute these grave offenses.
  • **Scope of Article 142:** It showcases the Supreme Court's expansive powers under Article 142 to do complete justice, even when a High Court has exercised its inherent powers partially.
  • **Impact of Amicable Settlements:** The ruling provides guidance on how amicable settlements, especially when coupled with restitution, can influence the quashing of even serious non-compoundable offenses, particularly when the core elements of the crime are weakened.
  • **Interpretation of BNSS/IPC Provisions:** It offers an insightful interpretation of the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indian Penal Code, particularly concerning dacoity and its foundational requirements.
  • **Strategic Implications for Defense:** Defense lawyers can leverage this judgment in cases where the primary motive of an alleged 'theft' or 'dacoity' was not wrongful gain and where restitution and settlement have occurred.

Disclaimer

All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues.

Legal Notes

Add a Note....