In a brief but packed hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court set aside an FIR filed in a dramatic 2024 incident at P.G. Public School, Nandurbar, observing that the case simply didn’t carry the ingredients of “dacoity” once all facts were examined. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the complainant and the accused had reached a complete settlement, and the materials taken during the incident had been returned.
Background
The matter stemmed from an FIR lodged after 6–7 men reportedly entered the school premises searching for Engineering and BAMS files. The complaint described a chaotic scene: keys snatched, a slap here, a push there, and files, computers, cash, letterheads, and stamps taken away.
Read also: Supreme Court signals fresh push for pending 2025 guidelines, adjourns plea by disabled students
But the twist came later-everything was returned. No one suffered serious injuries, and the complainant admitted that the real purpose of the intrusion was to locate certain institutional documents, not to steal school property.
Despite this, the Bombay High Court had only partially quashed the FIR. While it dropped charges of assault, intimidation, and related offences, it kept the case alive for the offence of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (earlier Section 395 IPC). The school management had objected to dropping that portion, calling itself the “real victim.”
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly examined the nature of the incident and the complainant’s affidavit. Justice Mehta remarked, almost conversationally, “The bench observed, ‘If all property is returned, no injuries are caused, and the complainant himself says there was no dishonest intention, then sustaining a charge of dacoity becomes difficult.’”
Read also: Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh High Court for 'Shocking' Habeas Corpus Bail Order, Sets Aside
The Court revisited the basic definition: for dacoity, there must first be robbery, and robbery arises only when theft or extortion exists with dishonest intention. The FIR itself, the judges noted, depicted a search operation rather than a robbery attempt.
The bench pointed out that the men wanted very specific files and weren’t armed. What cash and equipment they carried away appeared to be part of the pressure tactic-nothing was kept by them. The complainant plainly stated they returned every item, even the cheque book and blank letterheads.
In a telling passage of the judgment, the Court said the High Court had wrongly treated the school as a separate victim even though the dispute itself had been resolved. The bench noted that the entire factual matrix arose out of one continuous transaction, and once the compromise was accepted for some offences, it naturally extended to all.
Decision
Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR in full, calling the partial continuation of the dacoity charge “unjustified.”
The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of-bringing the nearly year-long legal tussle to an end.
Case Title: Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki & Others vs. State of Maharashtra – FIR Quashed in Nandurbar School Incident
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2025