[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Chattrsingh @ Lalo Haribhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 908 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHATTRSINGH @ LALO HARIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHAILI KAPADIA ADVOCATE WITH MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this appeal is given to the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.06.2007
passed by the learned Special Judge, Bharuch in Special
Atrocity Case No.13 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge
has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, under
Section 504 of IPC three months rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.400/- and under Section 3((i)(x) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short 'Atrocities Act') six months rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.800/- and in default of payment of fine further
three months, one month and two months simple
imprisonment respectively.
2. When the matter was taken up, learned advocate Ms.
Shaili Kapadia referring to sections on which the appellant got
convicted submitted that sections invoked of I.P.C. are
compoundable and further stated that the original complainant
and the injured have died and now his son Rajesh Gopalbhai
Vasava wanted to settle the dispute, and does not want to
continue with the grudge of conviction, as both, the appellant
and as a son of complainant and his family are neighbours
having their agriculture land adjoining to each other, thus for
peaceful co-existence, Advocate Ms. Kapadia submitted that
they have been desirous of settling the dispute.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil H.Prajapati appearing for
Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, the son of the original complainant,
submitted that he got it affirmed from the son of complainant,
Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, of the settlement and thereby an
affidavit has been executed before the Notary. Advocate Mr.
Prajapati proposes to file Vakalatnama. The registry to accept
the same.
3.1 Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, son of the complainant, is
present before this Court along with his affidavit and copy of
death certificate of his parents Gopalbhai and Surajben, who
died on 12.07.2012 and 15.05.2008 respectively. The copy of
settlement deed from the side of accused, which was drawn
before the Notary today i.e. on 20.02.2026 is also produced on
record, where the accused has assured that he and his family
would not in future have any dispute with regard to the
agricultural activities of both the families.
4. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta resisting to the settlement
submitted that though Section 324 and Section 504 of the
I.P.C. , as was provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., prior to
the amendment, permits the settlement, however taking into
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
consideration the object of Atrocity Act, has urged the Court
that the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe are required to be protected and an example
is required to be set so that no member of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe would ever get offended in future, hence,
stated that the offence need not be settled.
5. Perused the facts of the case, it appears that there was
some allegation upon appellant with regard to destruction of
branches and some 'Paras' flower and thus, the appellant
rushed to assault the deponent, who had filed the affidavit
today i.e. Rajesh Gopalbhai Vasava, who at that relevant time
was too young, and when the mother Sarojben intervened to
protect her son, she got injured at the ankle of the hand. The
parties are neighbours and also agriculturists. The peaceful co-
existence would ensure the safety of both sides and even of
the village people.
6. Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. permits the parties to settle
the dispute and compound the offence under Section 504 of
I.P.C. and Section 324 of I.P.C. which falls under the table,
under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. also gives power
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
to the person who is hurt to compound the offence with
permission of the Court. Now, the person who was injured is no
more. The son, who was also present at the place of offence
and the mother while protecting the son sustained injury, he
does not want the dispute to continue and thus, has prayed the
Court to compound the offence, hence, permission is granted.
7. Hence, taking into consideration the settlement and since
Section Section 504 of I.P.C.falls under table of sub-section (1)
and Section 324 of I.P.C. falls under the table, under sub-
section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. also gives power to the
person who is hurt to compound the offence with permission of
the Court, the permission is granted to compound the offence.
Hence, the offence is compounded.
8. Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act reads as under:
"3(1)(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."
8.1 Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act intends to protect
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
case where they are intentionally insulted or intimidated with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
the intent to humiliate them in any case within the public view.
Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act do not refer to physical
injury, it only refers to intention to humiliate within public
view.
9. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
9.1 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."
9.2 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...."
10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties and considering the ratio, as laid down in the
above mentioned decisions, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08 .06.2007
passed by the learned Special Judge, Bharuch in Special
Atrocity Case No.13 of 2006 is set aside. The appellant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/908/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Bail
bond s tands canc ell ed. Record and proceedings, be
sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/13
