The Supreme Court has ruled that once a High Court accepts a compromise to quash certain offences in an FIR, it cannot sustain other offences arising from the exact same “inseparable” factual matrix. The Court held that if the settlement is genuine enough to quash personal offences, it “equally dilutes the foundation” of more serious charges like dacoity that rest on the same allegations.
In a judgment delivered on November 17, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside an order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which had split an FIR—quashing charges of assault and intimidation based on a settlement, while refusing to quash the charge of dacoity.
The Apex Court termed the continued partial prosecution as “unjustified” and quashed the entire FIR invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Issue: Can an FIR be Split Based on Compromise?
The legal question before the Supreme Court in Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki vs. State of Maharashtra was whether a High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash part of an FIR based on a settlement while permitting proceedings to continue for a harsher offence (Dacoity) arising from the same incident.
The Bombay High Court, vide its order dated January 31, 2025, had quashed offences under Sections 115(2) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation), and 351(3) (Intentional insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [corresponding to IPC Sections 326, 506, and 504]. However, it refused to quash the charge under Section 310(2) BNS [Section 395 IPC – Dacoity], reasoning that it was a crime against society and not personal to the complainant.
Supreme Court’s Observation: “Single Transaction”
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s approach. Relying heavily on the nature of the incident, the bench observed that the allegations in the FIR constituted a “single transaction.”
Writing for the bench, Justice Mehta held in Paragraph 13:
“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.”
The Court emphasized that once the High Court exercised its jurisdiction to quash the “personal” offences based on the complainant’s voluntary affidavit, “there was no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR” for the dacoity charge.
Factual Background
The case arose from an incident on October 4, 2024, at P.G. Public School in Nandurbar. The complainant, a senior clerk, alleged that several persons entered the premises demanding “Engineering and B.A.M.S. files.” The FIR alleged that the accused assaulted staff, forcibly took keys, and removed a cheque book, stamps, files, a computer, and cash.
However, the complainant later filed an affidavit stating the matter was amicably settled upon the intervention of elders, and all property (money, files, stamps) had been returned. He explicitly stated he did not wish to continue the prosecution.
“Dishonest Intention” Diluted
The Supreme Court also scrutinized the ingredients of Dacoity under Section 310(2) BNS. It noted that for Dacoity to be established, Robbery must be proved, which in turn requires Theft. A foundational element of Theft is “dishonest intention” (wrongful gain/loss).
The Court found that the accused’s primary motive was to retrieve specific institutional files, not to steal. The bench noted:
“This complete restitution and amicable settlement between the accused and respondent No.2-complainant completely dilutes the allegation of ‘dishonest intention’ required to constitute theft, and by extension, robbery or dacoity.”
Verdict
Holding that the partial continuation of the prosecution was unjustified, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024 in its entirety.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2628 of 2025)
- Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
