The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for dacoity (BNS S. 310(2)/IPC S. 395) as the alleged acts lacked dishonest intention for theft/robbery—a prerequisite for dacoity. The Court held that subsequent full restitution and amicable settlement with the complainant negated the core criminal intent, rendering the entire prosecution unsustainable.
Facts Of The Case:
The complainant, a school clerk, alleged that on October 4, 2024, six to seven unknown persons entered P.G. Public School in Nandurbar. They demanded specific Engineering and B.A.M.S. files, assaulted and intimidated staff, and forcibly took a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, cash (Rs. 1,50,000), and a computer. The accused were allegedly searching for institutional documents, and the taking of property was incidental. Subsequently, the accused and the complainant reached an amicable settlement, with all seized money and materials being returned. Based on this compromise, the appellants approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing charges for personal offences but refused to quash the charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS, holding it was not a crime personal to the complainant as it affected school property. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against this partial refusal to quash the FIR.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the registration of FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024 at Nandurbar Taluka Police Station. The appellants thereafter filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking quashing of the FIR. By its order dated January 31, 2025, the High Court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the proceedings concerning offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 of the BNS but permitted the prosecution to continue for the offence of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS. Aggrieved by this partial refusal, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2628 of 2025 before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and culminated in the present criminal appeal.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Tiger Safaris and Forest Protection
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the core allegations in the FIR revealed the accused’s primary motive was to retrieve specific institutional files, not to commit theft for wrongful gain. The acts of intimidation and temporary taking of property were incidental to this purpose. The Court held that the subsequent full restitution of all property and the amicable settlement with the complainant, as affirmed by his voluntary affidavit, completely negated the essential element of ‘dishonest intention’ required to establish theft, and consequently, robbery or dacoity. It further found that the factual matrix for all alleged offences was inseparable, arising from a single transaction, and thus the compromise validly diluted the foundation of the dacoity charge as well.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the impugned FIR (C.R. No. 270 of 2024) and all consequent proceedings in their entirety. The Court held that the compromise and full restitution had removed the foundational dishonest intent necessary for the offence of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS, making the continuation of prosecution unsustainable.