If Some Offences Are Quashed On Compromise, FIR Can't Be Sustained For Other Offences From Same Transaction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 17) set aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order that had partially quashed an FIR by dropping some charges while allowing the dacoity charge to stand, even though all the alleged offences arose from a single transaction forming one continuous incident.

“Once the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 of the BNS [Sections 326, 506 and 504 of the IPC], on the basis of the voluntary affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant, there was no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC]. 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.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said founding the High Court's approach to be erroneous splitting the offences.

The case involved an FIR lodged by a complainant alleging that 6-7 unknown persons entered the school premises, assaulted staff, and took away files, a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, and cash. The High Court had partially allowed a quashing petition, settling offences like assault and criminal intimidation, but allowed the dacoity case to continue, treating it as a distinct offence against the school institution.

A judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that when a court accepts a compromise as bona fide for quashing certain charges, it implicitly acknowledges that the core of the dispute between the private parties has been extinguished.

“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 said, pointing out that to allow a more serious charge, which is rooted in the very same set of facts, to proceed, is legally untenable.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: PRASHANT PRAKASH RATNAPARKI AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1114

Click here to download judgment