Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki vs The State Of Maharashtra

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)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal by special leave takes

exception to the order dated 31st January, 2025

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

Aurangabad Bench1 in Criminal Application No. 4528

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2025.11.17 16:22:14 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.

1 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, 20232 [Corresponding to Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733] 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, 20234 [Corresponding Sections 326, 506

and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605

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”.

2 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

3 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

4 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

5 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 31st January, 2025 directed that the

proceedings arising out of the FIR would continue in

6 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.

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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.

11 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

12 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.

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