Settlement Undermined Allegation Of Dishonest Intention: Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings in Alleged School Dacoity Case

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment that had partially quashed an FIR arising out of an incident at a school, but had refused to quash the charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, upon hearing the matter, held that “this complete restitution and amicable settlement between the accused and complainant completely dilutes the allegation of ‘dishonest intention’ required to constitute theft, and by extension, robbery or dacoity.”

Advocate Virat Popat represented the appellant, while Advocate Maharshi Patel represented the respondents.

Background

According to the FIR, an incident occurred at a school where certain individuals entered the premises seeking specific files related to academic courses. During the event, items such as cash, a cheque book, stamps, letterheads, computers and files were taken away.

Subsequently, the complainant filed an affidavit stating that all items were returned to him and that no injury was caused to any person. He confirmed that the dispute had been settled amicably and that he had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

The accused approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR. The High Court partly allowed the petition and quashed offences relating to Sections 326, 506 and 504 of the IPC, but refused to quash the offence of dacoity.

Aggrieved by the partial refusal, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent settlement. The Bench observed that the FIR itself did not indicate any intention on the part of the accused to cause wrongful gain or permanently deprive the institution of its property. Instead, the facts suggested that the purpose of entering the premises was limited to obtaining certain files.

The Court noted the complainant’s explicit statement that no injuries were inflicted and that all cash, documents and electronic items had been returned. The Bench considered this restitution significant in assessing the presence or absence of dishonest intention.

The Court also held that once other offences arising from the same incident were quashed based on the settlement, declining to extend the same reasoning to the offence of dacoity was erroneous. The Bench, while making these observations, remarked that “…the factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable and arises from a single transaction”, further explaining that, “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”.

Accordingly, the Bench concluded that “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 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].”

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and quashed the FIR in its entirety along with all consequential proceedings. All pending applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1323)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Virat Popat, Shubham Singh, Shweta Lodha, Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, Dillip Kumar Nayak, and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary

Respondents: Advocates Maharshi Patel, Tirth Bhatt, Vikash Singh, AOR, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Shrirang B. Varma, and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment