Legal Review and Analysis of Prashant Prakash & Ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr 2025 INSC 1323
In-Short
Case: Prashant Prakash vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1323): Supreme Court quashes FIR for dacoity, ruling that absent 'dishonest intention' due to complete restitution and amicable settlement, the charge is unsustainable.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Prashant Prakash & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1323
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: November 17, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
This judgment interprets and applies provisions from the new criminal codes that replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
Section 528: Corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973. It grants inherent powers to the High Court to quash FIRs or proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
Section 310(2): Corresponds to Section 395 of the IPC, 1860. It defines the offence of Dacoity.
Section 309: Corresponds to Section 392 of the IPC, 1860. It defines the offence of Robbery.
Section 303: Corresponds to Section 378 of the IPC, 1860. It defines the offence of Theft.
Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352: Correspond to Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the IPC, 1860.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellate Jurisdiction: Criminal Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Origin: Appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench).
Subject Matter: Quashing of FIR No. C.R. No. 270 of 2024, registered at P.S. Nandurbar Taluka, District Nandurbar.
High Court's Order: The High Court partially quashed the FIR, allowing proceedings to continue only for the offence of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS, while quashing other personal offences based on a compromise.
Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the entire FIR and all consequent proceedings.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The Core Issue: Whether an FIR can be quashed in its entirety based on a compromise between the accused and the complainant when the charges include a serious, non-compoundable offence like dacoity, which is considered an offence against the state.
Analysis of the Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court's judgment revolves around a nuanced interpretation of the facts and the essential ingredients of the offence of dacoity.
A. Deconstructing the Offence of Dacoity: The Primacy of 'Dishonest Intention'
The Court began its analysis by breaking down the constituent elements of dacoity. It held that for an act to constitute dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS, it must first satisfy the definition of robbery under Section 309 of the BNS. Robbery, in turn, is an aggravated form of theft or extortion. The Court focused on the definition of theft under Section 303 of the BNS, emphasizing that its foundational element is the presence of a "dishonest intention" – that is, an intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
The Supreme Court scrutinized the FIR and found that the primary motive of the accused was not to permanently deprive the school of its property. Instead, the accused were seeking to retrieve specific institutional files (Engineering and B.A.M.S. files). The acts of slapping, pushing, and intimidation, along with the taking of cash, cheque books, and a computer, were deemed incidental to this main purpose of securing the documents. The Court concluded that the core ingredient of "dishonest intention" for theft was absent.
B. The Legal Impact of Restitution and Amicable Settlement
This conclusion was significantly fortified by the subsequent events. The respondent No. 2 (the complainant) filed a voluntary affidavit stating that:
All the taken items (money, cheque book, files, stamps, etc.) had been returned.
No harm or injury was caused to anyone.
The dispute had been amicably settled with the accused through the intervention of society members and elders, and the complainant had no desire to pursue prosecution.
The Supreme Court held that this complete restitution and amicable settlement completely diluted the allegation of "dishonest intention." Since the foundational offence of theft was not made out, the more serious offences of robbery and dacoity, which are predicated on theft, could not stand.
C. The Inseparability of the Factual Matrix and the High Court's Error
The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the High Court's rationale for sustaining the dacoity charge. The High Court had held that dacoity was not a "personal" offence to the complainant but was an offence against the school as an institution and society at large.
The Supreme Court countered this by stating that the entire factual matrix giving rise to all the offences – from slapping and intimidation to the taking of property – was inseparable and arose from a single transaction. The compromise, which the High Court itself had accepted as genuine for quashing the other offences, equally eroded the foundation of the dacoity charge. Allowing prosecution for dacoity to continue while quashing the underlying acts of violence and intimidation was, therefore, logically and legally unsustainable.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. In exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India (which empowers the Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any matter), the Supreme Court issued the following direction:
"We hereby quash the impugned FIR (C.R. No. 270 of 2024) and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof in entirety."
This resulted in the complete termination of all criminal proceedings against the appellants.
6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
1. In Prashant Prakash vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1323), the Supreme Court quashed the charge of dacoity primarily because?
a) The accused were not armed with deadly weapons.
b) The complainant was not seriously injured during the incident.
c) The essential element of 'dishonest intention' for theft was absent.
d) The High Court had already quashed all other charges.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the offence of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS is contingent upon first establishing the offence of?
a) Criminal Intimidation
b) Theft
c) Voluntarily causing hurt
d) Extortion
Blog Posts
