Karpoori Thakur Vs. Baikunth Nath Dey & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1988.
(In SLP No. 1441 of 1987.)
(In SLP No. 1441 of 1987.)
Petitioner: Karpoori Thakur
Respondent: Baikunth Nath Dey & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1988.
(In SLP No. 1441 of 1987.)
(In SLP No. 1441 of 1987.)
Judges: A.P.SEN & E.S.VENKATARAMIAH,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; sections 320 and 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860; sections 467, 468 and 471 – Offences punishable under ss. 467, 468 and 471 were not compoundable even with the permission of the Court – High Court should not have quashed the prosecution on the ground that the parties had settled their disputes.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have considerable doubt whether the High Court could have under s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 adverted to paragraph 63 of the Case Diary or relied upon the letter addressed by the parties to the Officer Incharge, Ramgarh Police Station dated January 13, 1985, and quashed the prosecution against respondent no.1 Baikunth Nath Dey on the ground that the parties had settled their disputes. It failed to appreciate that the alleged offences punishable under ss. 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, under s. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That apart, the subsequent letter addressed by the appellant Karpoori Thakur to the Officer Incharge, Police Station Ramgarh dated July 25, 1985 shows that respondent No.1 did not deposit the money in accordance with the settlement. It is unfortunate that the High Court should have passed an order in a perfunctory manner.
3. Even so, we do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to direct the prosecution to continue. Nor would such a prosecution be in the public interest. The dispute relates to the withdrawal of Rs. 39,800/- by respondent no.1 through cheque no. 017818 from the account which stood with the Central Bank of India, Hazari Bagh in the name of ‘Sri Karpoori Thakur for Chowdhari Charan Singh Fund (Lok Dal)’. The amount had been entrusted by the late Chowdhari Charan Singh, the National President of the Lok Dal to the appellant for party work.
4. We do not think that it would also be expedient to allow the prosecution to continue, in view of the statement made by respondent no.1 Baikunth Nath Dey, Advocate, who is present in Court. He states before us that he is agreeable to the Central Bank of India, Hazari Bagh transferring the remaining amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the earlier account in the name of ‘Sri Karpoori Thakur for Chowdhari Charan Singh Fund (Lok Dal)’ and undertakes to credit a sum of Rs. 1,800/- in that account to make good the deficit. The said amount of Rs. 39,800/- shall not be disbursed by the Bank except under the orders of the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. the account shall hereafter be operated by the rightful party, whoever it is.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have considerable doubt whether the High Court could have under s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 adverted to paragraph 63 of the Case Diary or relied upon the letter addressed by the parties to the Officer Incharge, Ramgarh Police Station dated January 13, 1985, and quashed the prosecution against respondent no.1 Baikunth Nath Dey on the ground that the parties had settled their disputes. It failed to appreciate that the alleged offences punishable under ss. 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, under s. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That apart, the subsequent letter addressed by the appellant Karpoori Thakur to the Officer Incharge, Police Station Ramgarh dated July 25, 1985 shows that respondent No.1 did not deposit the money in accordance with the settlement. It is unfortunate that the High Court should have passed an order in a perfunctory manner.
3. Even so, we do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to direct the prosecution to continue. Nor would such a prosecution be in the public interest. The dispute relates to the withdrawal of Rs. 39,800/- by respondent no.1 through cheque no. 017818 from the account which stood with the Central Bank of India, Hazari Bagh in the name of ‘Sri Karpoori Thakur for Chowdhari Charan Singh Fund (Lok Dal)’. The amount had been entrusted by the late Chowdhari Charan Singh, the National President of the Lok Dal to the appellant for party work.
4. We do not think that it would also be expedient to allow the prosecution to continue, in view of the statement made by respondent no.1 Baikunth Nath Dey, Advocate, who is present in Court. He states before us that he is agreeable to the Central Bank of India, Hazari Bagh transferring the remaining amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the earlier account in the name of ‘Sri Karpoori Thakur for Chowdhari Charan Singh Fund (Lok Dal)’ and undertakes to credit a sum of Rs. 1,800/- in that account to make good the deficit. The said amount of Rs. 39,800/- shall not be disbursed by the Bank except under the orders of the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. the account shall hereafter be operated by the rightful party, whoever it is.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
