Gujarat High Court
Mehulbhai Vanrajbhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951 of 2010
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1383 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MEHULBHAI VANRAJBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both the above Appeals challenge the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Surendranagar in Special Case No.52 of 2009 whereby the appellant-accused of Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2010 was sentenced to undergo one Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined year of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and for default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months.
2. The complainant-Pratikbhai Dilipbhai Solanki was present before this Court on 20.11.2025 and it was stated that they have settled the matter and have no dispute. The complainant was of the opinion that the dispute which arose if considered presently, would be considered negligent. While considering the facts of the case, it was found that Parimal Dilipbhai Solanki was injured during the scuffle and he appeared before the Court virtually and had also confirmed that the settlement had taken place because of the intervention of the community members as well as because of their own accord. Thereafter, he filed an affidavit, praying for compounding the offence.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Pratibha Kumavat had sought time to file the Vakalatnama. The same is on record today. Learned advocate Ms. Pratibha Kumavat has produced the affidavit of the injured complainant, who also appeared virtually, today.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
4. This Court has verified from the injured victim, who stated that they have resolved the dispute and have proposed to compound the offences, for which the complainant and the injured have sought permission.
5. The trial against the accused was under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Atrocities Act'). The alleged incident took place on 18.09.2008. The law as it stood prior to 31.12.2009 under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Cr.PC.') makes certain offences compoundable. Sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.PC provides a table wherein Section 325 of IPC was made compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused.
6. The injured-Parimal Dilipbhai Solanki has sought permission for compounding the offences in view of the provisions under Section 320 of Cr.PC. Permission is granted to compound the offences under Section 325 of IPC.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
7. The State's Appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1383 of 2010 is challenging the judgment of acquittal under the Atrocities Act.
8. 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 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."
9. 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:-
"The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted."
10. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), while dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Atrocities Act, 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."
11. Since Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act deals with the intentional insult or intimidation, and as the Section 325 of the IPC is compounded by the complainant and injured, both as victim, keeping in view the object of prevention, the acceptance of compromise to encourage fraternity should be appreciated.
12. In view of the observations made in the referred judgments, the intention behind the Act is to encourage brotherhood. The Constitution itself aims at removing discrimination of any form and when the parties have decided to settle and compound the issue, the State at the same time is required to encourage and cooperate with the people following the intention of the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Constitution as well as of the Act.
13. The complainant and the injured have their roots in Surendranagar. They have voluntarily decided to have a peaceful co-existence and the representative of the village have intervened for maintaining peace in the area. The cause of the State to entertain their Appeal would be of no significance, further coupled with the fact that the parties have settled and decided to compound Section 325 of IPC.
14. In view of the object behind the Atrocities Act and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2010 stands allowed as compounded. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Surendranagar in Special Case No.52 of 2009 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/951/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
15. In view of the statement, the cause for the State Appeal would not survive since Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is a provision which states that 'Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.'
16. The provision is made to protect the members of the Scheduled Tribe / Scheduled Tribe community since the provision of Section 325 of IPC was compoundable and when permission is granted to compound the offences, the cause to proceed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act would not survive.
17. In the result, the Appeal of the State No.1383/2010 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE / DB # 29 Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:51:00 IST 2025