Neville Dadi Master @ Neville Master vs The State Of West Bengal

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

(“Cr. P.C.”, hereafter). Since the offence under section 12 Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.05.19 16:58:29 IST Reason:

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;

hence, by an order dated 19th 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

contained in his order dated 2 nd 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

triggering the complaint dated 9 th August, 2017 lodged by

the latter.

3

5. Mr. Luthra learned senior counsel for the appellant

was heard at length on 21st 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.

7. A report dated 31st 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

warranted upon setting aside of the orders dated 19 th

September, 2022 and 2nd 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;

19th MAY, 2023.