OUSEPH POULO AND THREE OTHERS vs CATHOLIC UNION BANK LTD. AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that agreements made solely to stifle prosecution are against public policy and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, this doctrine does not apply to compoundable offences or those that can be compounded with court permission. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the transaction to demonstrate that it was intended to stifle prosecution. The High Court's reversal of the trial court's decision was upheld, allowing the Bank's claim for recovery.