Gujarat High Court
Patel Navinbhai Manilal vs The State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1718/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1718 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
PATEL NAVINBHAI MANILAL & ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A R ROCKEY(7592) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
KHUSHI P JADAV(7351) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Today, when the matter was called out, learned advocate
Mr. Hardeep L.Mahida has produced death certificate of
appellant No.1 - Patel Navinbhai Manilal, which shows the date
of death as 17.07.2025. The certificate is issued by Talati-cum-
Mantri, Jasalpur Gram Panchayat, Taluka Chanasma, District
Patan. In view of the death, appeal of appellant No.1 stands
abated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1718/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
2. The appellant No.2 - Patel Vishnubhai Manilal along with
the complainant - Sureshbhai Kantilal Parmar and the injured
victim - Vishnu alias Isho Rameshbhai Parmar were present
before the Court along with four village people in the first session
and urged the Court for compounding the offence stating that
the injured victim and the appellant No.2 both are neighbours.
3. The injured victim - Vishnu alias Isho Rameshbhai
Parmar submitted that now he has no grudge against anyone
and stated that the incident is of 15.06.2005 and long time has
passed and they are residing in the neighborhood peacefully. The
injured victim - Vishnu alias Isho Rameshbhai Parmar also
stated that he does not want the grudge to continue and thus,
made a prayer for compounding the offence.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval V. Kansara proposes to file
Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant as well as for victim.
Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. Kansara.
5. This Court has insisted for affidavit of all the parties.
Therefore, in the second session, the affidavit of the injured
victim - Vishnu Rameshbhai Parmar and the complainant -
Sureshbhai Kantilal Parmar with four witnesses along with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1718/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
individual affidavit of Vishnu Rameshbhai Parmar, affidavit of
the complainant - Sureshbhai Kantilal Parmar and affidavit of
accused - Patel Vishnubhai Manilal are produced on record.
Accused is identified by learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Kansara.
Affidavits are ordered to be taken on record.
6. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval submitted that Section 324
of the IPC is not compoundable by the amended provision of
2009 in 320 of Cr.P.C., thus, stated that the settlement
therefore, should not be entertained.
7. The incident is of 15.06.2005. Section 324 of IPC was
having its place in the second table under Section 320 of
Criminal Procedure Code, where the section was made
compoundable with the permission of the Court and the person
who is hurt can compound the offence. Section 337 was having
its place in table-2, while Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC were
applicable Sections in table-1, where the offences could be
compounded by the person affected and injured.
8. Taking into consideration those sections, which had been
invoked in the present matter, and having considered the
settlement and the affidavits of the injured victim, complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1718/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
and the accused with the statements of the complainant and the
victim with four of the witnesses on the hope that the parties
would reside amicably and peacefully and since the sections
which are invoked are compoundable under Section 320 of
Cr.P.C., prior to 2009, taking into consideration the date of
incident, the parties are permitted to compound the offence. The
present appellant No.2 was acquitted under the charges of
Atrocity Act.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence of the accused passed by the learned Special Judge,
Fast Track Court, Patan vide judgment and order dated
25.08.2006 in Special Atrocity Case No.5 of 2006 is quashed and
set aside. Appellant No.2 is acquitted in terms of compounding
the offence. Bail bond stands discharged. Registry is directed to
send the Record and Proceedings back to the concerned Trial
Court.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/16
