Full Judgment Text
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………./2023
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.3212/2023]
Neville Dadi Master @ Neville Master …Appellant(s)
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Leave granted.
2. On the basis of a complaint dated 9th August, 2017
lodged by the second respondent, an F.I.R. of even date
under sections 419/353/447/120B of the Indian Penal
Code (“IPC”, hereafter) read with section 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (“P.C. Act, hereafter) was
registered against the appellant. Investigation that
followed culminated in a report (charge-sheet) being filed
under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETA SAPRA
Date: 2023.05.19
16:58:29 IST
Reason:
(“Cr. P.C.”, hereafter). Since the offence under section 12
of the P.C. Act is exclusively triable by the Special Court,
2
the case was accordingly committed to such court by the
relevant Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (“ACJM”,
hereafter). The appellant then applied for discharge, which
was allowed in part. The Special Court, though held that
there was no ground for framing charge under sections
353/120B of the IPC and section 12 of the P.C. Act, was
satisfied of there being prima facie material to proceed
against the appellant under sections 447/419 of the IPC;
th
hence, by an order dated 19 September, 2022, the
Special Court transmitted the case to the court of the
ACJM. This order of the Special Court was challenged by
the appellant in an application under section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. before the Calcutta High Court. For the reasons
nd
contained in his order dated 2 January, 2023, a learned
Judge has dismissed the application.
3. The challenge in this civil appeal is to the said order of
dismissal.
4. Having regard to the order that this Court proposes to
pass, it is considered inessential to refer to who the
appellant and the second respondent are and also as to
what transpired between them on the relevant date
th
triggering the complaint dated 9 August, 2017 lodged by
the latter.
3
5. Mr. Luthra learned senior counsel for the appellant
st
was heard at length on 21 March, 2023. The contentions
raised by him on behalf of the appellant on the merits of
the orders passed by the Special Court and the High Court
did not impress this Court. However, since sections 447
and 419 of the IPC make the offences thereunder
compoundable by the person in possession of the property
trespassed and cheated, respectively, Mr. Luthra fervently
urged the Court to allow the appellant to meet the second
respondent and tender his unqualified apology for the
conduct complained of in the aforesaid complaint.
6. The prayer of Mr. Luthra was granted. The appellant
was directed to meet the second respondent in person and
tender unqualified apology. The second respondent was
required to report to the Registry of the Calcutta High
Court regarding his satisfaction of the nature of apology
tendered by the appellant.
st
7. A report dated 31 March, 2023 of the second
respondent has since been received and placed on the
record. Reading of such report reveals tendering of
unqualified apology by the appellant to the second
respondent for his conduct and remorse being expressed in
4
regard thereto. It is also reported that the second
respondent is “satisfied with such tender” .
8. Mr. Luthra has submitted that it was an act of
indiscretion on the part of the appellant; however, having
realized that he has committed a grave mistake for which
no one else is to be faulted, he is now genuinely regretful
and undertakes not to repeat such conduct in future. He,
accordingly, prayed that this Court may direct closure of
the proceedings upon setting aside the orders of the
Special Court and the High Court.
9. Mr. Grover, learned senior counsel appearing for the
first respondent, in his usual fairness, has left the matter
to the discretion of the Court.
10. In the light of the aforesaid statement made by Mr.
Luthra, which is treated as an undertaking of the appellant
to this Court, and bearing in mind that offences under
sections 447 and 419 of the Cr. P.C. are compoundable
coupled with the satisfaction reported by the second
respondent, this Court is of the considered view that no
useful purpose would be served in subjecting the appellant
to stand trial. Having regard to the special facts and
circumstances of this particular case and to give a quietus
to the matter, closure of G.R. Case No. 2199 of 2017 which
5
the ACJM is presently seized of against the appellant is
th
warranted upon setting aside of the orders dated 19
nd
September, 2022 and 2 January, 2023. It is ordered
accordingly. The appellant is discharged of the bail bond.
11. The appeal is allowed, without any order for costs.
12. Before parting, this Court sounds a note of caution for
the appellant to be careful in future to avoid recurrence of
similar incident and at the same time records a note of
appreciation for the second respondent for not precipitating
the matter further. After all, ‘to err is human but forgiving
is divine’.
13. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the second
respondent.
…………………………………J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
…………………………………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
NEW DELHI;
th
19 MAY, 2023.