Can dacoity charges be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when full restitution and absence of dishonest intention are established?

LawSikho
November 18, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	Crl.A. No.-004896-004896 – 2025
Diary Number	7612/2025
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Precedent Value	Binding
Overrules / Affirms	Overrules the High Court’s order insofar as it refused to quash the dacoity offence
Type of Law	Criminal Law
Questions of Law	Whether inherent power under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing of a dacoity charge when compromise and full restitution are shown Whether ‘dishonest intention’ element of theft/robbery/dacoity is negated by return of property and amicable settlement Whether a single transaction’s offences must all stand or fall together under quashing jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi	The Court held that dacoity under Section 395 IPC cannot stand when the FIR discloses no primary intent to permanently deprive for wrongful gain, and full restitution plus amicable compromise negate the ‘dishonest intention’ essential to theft, robbery and dacoity. Since all alleged offences arose from one transaction and the complainant confirmed return of all property and no injury, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC warranted quashing of the entire FIR.
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Analysis of ingredients of dacoity (Section 395 IPC) and robbery (Section 392 IPC) as aggravated theft requiring dishonest intention (Section 378 IPC). Emphasis on primary motive to retrieve files, not to wrongfully gain. Weight to voluntary affidavit confirming return of money, files, cheque book and absence of harm. Unity of transaction principle: compromise affecting one offence extends to all offences arising from same facts.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	A school clerk lodged an FIR alleging 6–7 unknown persons forcibly entered premises to obtain engineering and BAMS files, took cheque book, blank pads, stamps, money and computer, threatened violence; later an amicable settlement returned all items and no one was injured.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts
Persuasive For	High Courts
Overrules	High Court order dated 31 January 2025 in Criminal Application No. 4528/2024 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench)
Distinguishes	Private-compromise cases where motive is retrieval of documents from offences affecting society at large

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

The absence of ‘dishonest intention’ in the FIR, coupled with full restitution and amicable settlement, can justify quashing even serious charges like dacoity under Section 395 IPC.
Compromise and return of property in a single transaction-based FIR extend to all offences arising therefrom; partial quashing only is unjustified.
High Courts and trial courts must examine motive and element of wrongful gain before refusing to quash.
Voluntary affidavits confirming restitution carry decisive weight in inherent power petitions under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Examination of FIR shows primary objective was retrieval of institutional files, not wrongful gain or permanent deprivation.
Dacoity (Section 395 IPC) presupposes robbery (Section 392 IPC), which in turn requires theft with dishonest intention (Section 378 IPC).
Alleged physical force was used only to compel production of files; taking of money and materials was incidental.
Complainant’s voluntary affidavit confirms full return of cheque book, money, files, pads and no injury.
Complete restitution and compromise negate the ‘dishonest intention’ essential for theft/robbery/dacoity.
Once inherent jurisdiction quashed related offences (Sections 326, 506, 504 IPC), no rationale remained to sustain dacoity charge arising from same transaction.
Exercising powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court quashed the entire FIR.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Accused):

FIR arose from a private dispute over access to files; no intention to steal or cause wrongful gain.
Full restitution of money, files, cheque book, stamps and computer had occurred.
Continuing prosecution amounts to abuse of process and is contrary to the spirit of compromise.

Respondent No.2 (Complainant):

All property was returned; no injury caused.
Amicable settlement effected with the accused; not desirous of pursuing prosecution further.

Factual Background

A senior clerk of P.G. Public School lodged an FIR alleging unknown persons forcibly entered the school on 04/10/2024 seeking engineering and BAMS files, took a cheque book, blank pads, stamps, cash and a computer, and threatened violence. The parties later amicably settled, and all items were returned. The Bombay High Court partially quashed offences personal to the complainant but retained the dacoity charge. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Statutory Analysis

Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers akin to Section 482 CrPC) empowers courts to prevent abuse of process.
Section 310(2) BNS / Section 395 IPC defines dacoity, requiring commission of robbery (Section 392 IPC) by five or more persons.
Section 303 BNS / Section 378 IPC defines theft, mandating dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
Court interprets that absence of dishonest intention and full restitution preclude the foundational element of theft/robbery/dacoity, justifying quashing under inherent jurisdiction.

Procedural Innovations

Reinforces that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing of serious offences when core ingredients are negated by compromise and restitution.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR when compromise and restitution negate dishonest intention.