Robbery Is Built on Theft, Theft Demands Dishonesty – None Exists Here: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

In a significant ruling clarifying the essential ingredients of robbery and dacoity under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Supreme Court on 17 November 2025 quashed an FIR in its entirety, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court held that no case for dacoity can stand where the accused neither acted with dishonest intention nor caused wrongful gain or injury, and where all allegedly misappropriated property was fully returned through a lawful compromise.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision which had quashed certain offences but permitted proceedings to continue under Section 310(2) BNS (equivalent to Section 395 IPC, Dacoity). The apex court held that this selective quashing was "wholly unjustified" and that the entire prosecution based on a single incident with no lasting criminal consequence must end.

“No Dishonest Intention, No Dacoity”: Supreme Court Unravels the Legal Chain

At the core of the decision was the Court’s finding that the offence of dacoity, as defined under Section 310(2) BNS, could not be sustained unless the base offence of robbery under Section 309 BNS was first made out, which itself required the commission of theft under Section 303 BNS.

"The foundational element of theft is ‘dishonest intention’ — the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss," the Court explained. "In the present case, the FIR does not demonstrate any such intention."

The complaint lodged against 6–7 unknown persons alleged that they entered a school premises demanding access to certain engineering and BAMS files. In the course of this confrontation, they allegedly took certain items including cash, a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, and a computer, all of which were later returned. The complainant himself admitted in a sworn affidavit that no one was injured, no weapons were used, and that all property was restored.

Holding that the entire sequence of events arose from a document-related dispute and not from any motive to steal or rob, the Court stated: "The alleged acts appear to have arisen out of a dispute concerning possession of certain documents rather than from any intention to commit dacoity."

“Once You Accept Compromise, You Cannot Cherry-Pick Charges”: Supreme Court Rebukes Partial Quashing by High Court

The Court rejected the High Court’s approach of quashing only the lesser charges under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 BNS while allowing the dacoity charge to survive. It held that all the alleged offences arose from a "single inseparable transaction" and that there was no basis in law to sustain one part of the FIR when the rest stood quashed on grounds of compromise and lack of criminal intent.

"Once the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the other offences... there was no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) BNS," the Court ruled. It added, "The factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable and arises from a single transaction."

Further, the Court noted that the complainant — a school clerk — had expressly stated that he did not wish to continue the case and confirmed through affidavit that the accused had returned all property and that no harm or injury had occurred. The Court said: "This complete restitution and amicable settlement... completely dilutes the allegation of dishonest intention required to constitute theft, and by extension, robbery or dacoity."

“Article 142 Exists to Prevent Abuse of Law – This Was One Such Case”: Entire FIR Quashed

Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court ordered a full and final quashing of FIR C.R. No. 270/2024, holding that there was no justification to allow the prosecution to continue under any charge, let alone the severe offence of dacoity.

"In this background, we are of the considered view that the continued partial prosecution of the appellants for the offence of dacoity... is unjustified and deserves to be quashed," the Court said. "We hereby quash the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof in entirety."

This ruling reiterates the Court's earlier jurisprudence that compromise, absence of mens rea, and restitution can nullify even serious charges, provided the factual allegations fail to meet the essential legal ingredients of the offence. The decision thus prevents misuse of legal process in cases where settled civil disputes are transformed into criminal prosecutions without substantive basis.

The case stands as a caution to investigative and judicial authorities against proceeding mechanically with severe charges like dacoity when the underlying incident clearly lacks criminal intent and where the injured party has explicitly sought closure.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025