IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that settlements can influence the quashing of convictions in non-compoundable cases if they do not pose a serious societal threat.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Challenge in this Revision Application is given to the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch in Criminal Case no.4170 of 2015 as well as the order dated 31.7.2024 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal no.127 of 2018.

3. Mr. P.A. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that cross case had been filed for the incident alleged to have taken place on 11.5.2015 being CR no.I-63/2015 registered with Bharuch City “A” Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and CR no.109/2015 was filed with Bharuch City “A” Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Mr. Pathan submitted that pursuant to the offence bearing CR no.109/2015, Criminal Case no.1119/2016 was settled and by way of settlement, all the three accused i.e. deceased Ambalal Mafatlal Vaghela and both his sons Dineshbhai and Ajaybhai were acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch on 3.8.2021 while the proceedings against the present applicant earlier resulted into conviction by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch on 15.10.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 of IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The conviction was challenged before the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal no.127/2018 and on 31.7.2024, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch rejected the appeal confirming the conviction except setting aside conviction for Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and confirmed the sentence of other sections.

3.1 Mr. Pathan submitted that in the subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case no.1119/2016, the parties before the Court had filed a purshis at Exh.44 for the settlement. Mr. Pathan submitted that before the learned Appellate Court, a purshis was filed at Exh.29 making a prayer by the complainant to give the benefit of probation to the accused. The Probation Officer’s report was produced at Exh.33. Considering Section 326 of IPC invoked in the present matter, the learned Appellate Court has not found it fit to compound the case.

4. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent– State submitted that Section 326 of IPC is invoked which invites the punishment to life imprisonment and submitted that it is an offence for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon and thus, stated that the offence would not be compoundable. Learned APP further submitted that ten prohibition cases, one IPC case, one Arms Act case and one Gujarat Police Act case have been registered against the present accused.

5. Learned advocate for heirs of respondent no.2 has placed on record the affidavits of settlement filed by Babliben Ambalal Vaghela, Dineshbhai Ambalal Vaghela and Ajaybhai Ambalal Vaghela who are present before this Court and the heirs of respondent no.2 have affirmed the contents of the affidavits who are identified by learned advocate for respondent no.2. The same is taken on record. Learned advocate seeks permission to file Vakalatnama. Let Vakalatnama be accepted.

6. It is true that certain section of IPC is non- compoundable and that the other sections could be compounded with the permission of the Court. 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 compo