SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1940

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4896 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2628 of 2025]
Decided On : 17-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Virat Popat, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Ms. Shweta Lodha, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR Mr. Dillip Kumar Nayak, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
FIR cannot be quashed in piecemeal.

Headnote:

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 115(2), 310, 351(2), 351(3) and 352 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Hurt, criminal intimidation, insult and robbery – FIR – Matter was settled amicably between accused and complainant – FIR was initially registered against unknown persons – Alleged acts appear to have arisen out of a dispute concerning possession of certain documents rather than from any intention to commit dacoity – Primary motive, as discernible from FIR was not to permanently deprive school of its property for wrongful gain – High Court erred in sustaining objection raised by school and in proceeding on the premise that offence of dacoity was not personal to complainant, who had already settled dispute with accused persons – It is a fit case warranting quashing of complaint/FIR as a whole – Once High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR with respect to offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 of BNS [Sections 326, 506 and 504 of IPC], on the basis of voluntary affidavit of complainant, there was no justification to sustain same FIR for offence punishable under Section 310(2) of BNS [Section 395 of IPC] – In exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, FIR quashed. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Vide impugned order, High Court partially allowed petition filed by appellants under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] and quashed FIR to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 326, 506 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively]. However, proceedings arising from said FIR were permitted to be continued in respect of offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC].

Findings of Court:

In exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, we hereby quash impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof in entirety.

Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP 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 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’] in Criminal Application No. 4528 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 [For short “BNSS”] {Corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 [For short “Cr.P.C.”]} 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 [For short “BNS”] {Corresponding Sections 326, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 [For short “IPC”] 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].

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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top