Gujarat High Court
Kanubhai Khumansinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 962 of 2007
==========================================================
KANUBHAI KHUMANSINH VAGHELA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR.SUNIL B DAVE(9936) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants - original accused, who were convicted by the Learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Spl. (S.C./S.T.) Case No.28/2006 for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of I.P. Code as well as under Sec. 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act by the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 06.07.2007.
2. When the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr. M. A. Parekh submitted that the dispute was already settled between the parties. The matter was very negligible and the issue arose because of the flood water entering the house and when the people were relocated Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined in the Panchayat House, thereafter the issue was raised for asking them to move away from the Panchayat House.
3. Mr. Parekh submitted that there was no personal grievance of any of the accused against the complainant and that fact was also brought to the notice of the trial Court Judge. However, the conviction followed under section 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. All the four accused had been ordered to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment u/s. 323 of IPC and fine of Rs.200/- to each of them and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days simple imprisonment. While under Section 504 of IPC, the accused were convicted for three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- to each of the accused and in default of payment of fine fifteen days simple imprisonment. The accused were also convicted under Section 506(2) and 114 of IPC for three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- to each of the accused and in default of payment of fine fifteen days simple imprisonment. While all the accused were also convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act for six months Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment.
4. Advocate Mr. Sunil B. Dave has produced the affidavit of the complainants signed before the notary. This Court had the occasion to join the complainant by way of video conferencing who affirmed the affidavit and stated that he is an agriculturist and the issue was for the flood water which had culminated into an FIR. Even during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that he had already informed the Court that the matter have been settled. He requested the Court to compound offence and to dispose of the matter as settled.
5. Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP submitted that though the sections under IPC are compoundable but the learned judge has considered the gravity of the offence and sufficient and appropriate sentence has been passed. In view of the same, learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval submitted that the case under Atrocity Act should not be compounded.
6. Since Section 323, 504, 506(2) of the IPC are Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined compoundable as noted under section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the permission to compound the matter is granted by this Court.
7. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
7.1 In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Per: Hon'ble Justice S. Ravindra Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Bhatt) referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs. Union of India , reported in 1993 (1) SCR 480, wherein it has been held as under:-
"In our considered opinion this argument is misconceived and has no relevance to the facts of the present case. One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is 'fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.' It will be relevant to cite the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar for the word 'fraternity' explaining that 'fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.' In a country like ours with so many disruptive forces of regionalism, communalism and linguism, it is necessary to emphasis and re-emphasis that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood. India has one common citizenship and every citizen should feel that he is Indian first irrespective of other basis. In this view, any measure at bringing about equality should be welcome."
7.2. In a similar way, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sundar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 457, held that:- Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined "The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted."
8. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), while dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it was held as under:-
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameter, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear and no argument to the contrary has been raised."
9. Since the issue was about the agitation of the people during the course of flood and thereafter the matter has been settled. Taking into consideration the object of the Atrocity Act as referred herein above in the Judgment reproduced, this Court is of the view that the permission is also required to be granted under section Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/962/2007 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act for settling the issue so that the people in the village would have a peaceful co- habitation without any struggle and ill will.
10. In view of the same, the affidavit of settlement is accepted on record and the permission to compound the offence is granted. In view of the same, the appeal is allowed in terms of the settlement. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2007 passed by the th learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, 4 Fast Track Court, Anand in Special SC/ST Case No.28 of 2006 is set aside. All the accused are acquitted. Bail bond discharged. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court.
(GITA GOPI,J) MAYA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:50:53 IST 2025