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 Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules High Court’s refusal to quash dacoity charge; affirms inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIR for dacoity punishable under Section 395 IPC can be quashed under inherent jurisdiction of the court when the dispute is personal and complete restitution has been made. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The FIR disclosed that unknown individuals entered school premises to retrieve specific institutional files without any intention to permanently deprive the school of property or gain wrongful advantage. Robbery and dacoity under Sections 392 and 395 IPC require proof of dishonest intention, which was absent as full restitution of all items was made and affirmed by the complainant. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing of proceedings arising from a single transaction when the complainant has settled amicably and there is no public interest in continuing prosecution. The High Court erred in treating dacoity as non-personal; once the foundational dishonest intention is negated, the dacoity charge collapses. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the entire FIR and all proceedings under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Unknown persons entered P.G. Public School premises seeking engineering and B.A.M.S. files, seized a cheque book, letter pads, stamps, cash and a computer, used force and threats but caused no serious injury; all items were subsequently returned and the complainant settled amicably. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering quashing petitions |
| Overrules | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench order dated 31 January 2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court extends inherent jurisdiction to quash dacoity charges (Section 395 IPC) where complete restitution and personal compromise occur.
- Clarifies that absence of dishonest intention, confirmed by full restitution affidavit, undermines the foundation for robbery and dacoity offences.
- Affirms that compromise in a single-transaction dispute can quash all charges arising therefrom, not just those personal to the complainant.
- Establishes that objections by third-party victims are irrelevant if the complainant has settled and returned all property.
- Confirms binding precedent for subordinate courts on quashing petitions in non-heinous criminal offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the FIR, noting that 6–7 unknown individuals entered school premises to retrieve specific files.
- It analysed the statutory definitions of theft (Section 378 IPC), robbery (Section 392 IPC) and dacoity (Section 395 IPC), emphasising the requirement of dishonest intention for wrongful gain.
- Observed that the taking of cash, cheque books and other materials was incidental to the primary objective of retrieving files, not to permanently deprive or gain.
- Placed significant weight on the voluntary affidavit of the complainant confirming full restitution of all items and absence of injury.
- Concluded that the foundational element of dishonest intention was negated and that all offences arose from a single transaction.
- Held that the High Court’s partial quashing was unjustified; inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC warrant quashing the FIR and proceedings in their entirety.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused):
- The dispute was personal to the complainant and arose from retrieval of specific documents.
- There was no dishonest intention to permanently deprive the school of its property.
- All property was returned and an amicable settlement was reached.
- Continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
Respondent No.2 (Complainant):
- Confirmed that all money, cheque book, letterheads, stamps, files and other materials were returned.
- Stated that no injury was caused to any person by the appellants.
- Expressed no desire to continue prosecution after settlement.
State of Maharashtra:
- Did not file any counter-affidavit.
Factual Background
On 4 October 2024, the complainant, a senior clerk at P.G. Public School, Nandurbar, lodged an FIR alleging that six to seven unknown individuals forcibly entered the school premises seeking Engineering and B.A.M.S. files. They seized a cheque book, blank letter pads, stamps, ₹150,000 in cash and an HP computer, assaulted staff and threatened to kill the principal if reported. No weapons were used and no serious injury occurred. Subsequently, the accused returned all seized items and a compromise was reached through community mediation.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 303, 309 and 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 378, 392 and 395 IPC) define theft, robbery and dacoity respectively, each requiring proof of dishonest intention for wrongful gain.
- The Court held that incidental taking of property without intent to deprive permanently does not satisfy these elements.
- Exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed proceedings for non-heinous offences when full restitution and personal compromise are effected.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing non-heinous offences.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns the High Court’s restriction on quashing a dacoity charge.