Supreme Court Upholds Partial Quashing of FIR in Dacoity Case, Retains Charge Under Section 310(2) BNS. High Court's Order Allowing Quashing of Lesser Offences While Retaining Dacoity Charge Not Interfered With.

  • 244
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal by special leave arises from an order dated 31st January 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Application No. 4528 of 2024. The appellants had filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024 registered at P.S. Nandurbar Taluka, District Nandurbar. The FIR alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), corresponding to Sections 326, 506, 504, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court partially allowed the petition and quashed the FIR to the extent of offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 BNS, but permitted the proceedings to continue in respect of the offence under Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity). Aggrieved by the retention of the dacoity charge, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and granted leave. Upon consideration, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the partial quashing and the continuation of proceedings for the offence of dacoity.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 CrPC, 1973) - The High Court partially allowed the petition under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the FIR for offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 BNS but retained the charge under Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity). The Supreme Court upheld this order, finding no ground to interfere. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in partially quashing the FIR by retaining the charge under Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity) while quashing other offences.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order dated 31st January 2025. Leave granted but no interference made.

Law Points

  • Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) inherent powers
  • quashing of FIR
  • partial quashing
  • distinction between dacoity and other offences
  • scope of inherent jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 INSC 1323

Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2628 of 2025)

2025-01-31

Mehta, J.

2025 INSC 1323

Prashant Prakash Ratnaparkhi and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against High Court order partially quashing FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought complete quashing of FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the High Court's order retaining the charge under Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity) while quashing other offences.

Previous Decisions

High Court partially allowed the petition under Section 528 BNSS, quashing FIR for offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 BNS but retaining proceedings for offence under Section 310(2) BNS.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in retaining the charge under Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity) while quashing other offences.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the High Court should have quashed the entire FIR including the dacoity charge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS in partially quashing the FIR while retaining the charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) BNS.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard. Leave granted. 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 Bench in Criminal Application No. 4528 of 2024.

Procedural History

The appellants filed a petition under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. 270 of 2024. The High Court partially allowed the petition on 31st January 2025, quashing the FIR for certain offences but retaining the charge under Section 310(2) BNS. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was converted into a Criminal Appeal. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on the same date.

Acts & Sections

  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 115(2), 310(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 326, 395, 504, 506
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Partial Quashing of FIR in Dacoity Case, Retains Charge Under Section 310(2) BNS. High Court's Order Allowing Quashing of Lesser Offences While Retaining Dacoity Charge Not Interfered With.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs State to Communicate Reasons for Rejecting College Permission Application. State Government Failed to Comply with Earlier Court Order to Provide Reasons for Rejection of Application Under Section 83 of Maharashtra Universiti...