Gujarat High Court
Jagubhai Devayatbhai Khachar vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2334/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2334 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
JAGUBHAI DEVAYATBHAI KHACHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN G VAHELA for the ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 25/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.3), Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Special Atrocity Case No.31 of 2007.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant Mr. Pravin Gondaliya submitted that the conviction was under
Section 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 02:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2334/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Atrocities Act'). It is further submitted that the issue was with regard to a trivial issue and the parties have settled the dispute.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Rohan G. Vaghela has submitted that he has instructions to appear for the original complainant and has produced the Affidavit of the original complainant. Let the Vakalatnama of Mr. Rohan G. Vaghela be taken on record.
4. The affidavit of the original complainant-Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Godavariya has been notarised and it has been stated that because of the intervention of the members of the family, community members and society and by mutual understanding and agreement, they have settled their grievances and now propose to compound the offences.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 02:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2334/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined
5. The complainant is present before this Court today and he confirms the affidavit filed by him. Learned advocate Mr. Rohan G. Vaghela identifies the complainant. The above affidavit is supported with a copy of the Aadhar Card of the complainant. The Affidavit is ordered to be taken on record.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the parties would have the authority to compound the offences, i.e. Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of IPC since the complaint is dated 07.05.2007. It is submitted that the object of the Atrocities Act is to protect the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and thus, for the purpose of protecting the purpose and object of the Atrocities Act, the settlement should not be considered and the conviction be upheld.
7. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 02:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2334/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined 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."
8. 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 State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted."Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 02:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2334/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined
9. 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."
10. Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of IPC were made compoundable without the permission of the Court. Under the provision of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Cr.P.C.') as it stood prior to 31.12.2009, as the Sections would fall under Table 1 appended to sub-section (1) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. where permission of Court was not necessary against the person where the offences would be compounded.
11. In view of the provisions of the Atrocities Act and as the complainant has prayed for compounding of the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 02:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2334/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of IPC and when the complainant has already compounded the offences under IPC, taking into consideration the principles laid down in the above referred judgments with regard to the Atrocities Act, the conviction and sentence is set aside. The judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.3), Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Special Atrocity Case No.31 of 2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Bail bond stands discharged. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE / DB # 34 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 02:33:02 IST 2025