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

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

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

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

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

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

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:-

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

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.