Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J
IMRANBHAI HUSAHAINKHA PATHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1875 of 2006|Special Atrocity Case No.14 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR VC VAGHELA
For the Respondents: MS MONALI BHATT
Settlement of disputes in cases of Atrocity Act offenses can lead to acquittal if the parties agree, subject to verification of consent.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - IPC - Sections 323, 504, 506(2) - Appeal for conviction of the appellant was allowed upon the parties settling the dispute after misunderstanding; After verifying from the complainant regarding his volition to settle, the offence under Section 323 IPC was compounded as no permission from the Court was required. (Paras 1-6, 10)
(B) Supreme Court Guidance - In relevant judgments, it was suggested that efforts to promote fraternity and dignity amongst individuals are crucial for national unity; The Court reiterated the importance of upholding the integrity of the Atrocities Act in preventing misuse while allowing compounding of offences in exceptional cases. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Atrocities Act and IPC charges. The complainant voluntarily settled the dispute against him.
Findings of Court:
Conviction set aside due to settlement and lack of evidentiary support for charges under the Atrocities Act.
Issues: Whether the settlement is permissible under the Atrocity Act and the impact on the conviction under IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The intent to humiliate must be established beyond the misunderstanding between parties; Compounding offences is permissible under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Result: Appeal granted, charges quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement achieved between appellant and complainant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. impact of atrocity act's objectives on settlement. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's observation on constitutional demands for fraternity. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. ruling confirmed on clarity of substantiated convictions. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Challenge in this appeal is given to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.10.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge Fast Track, Bharuch Camp-Ankleshwar in Special Atrocity Case No.14 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”) and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days further rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to under go fifteen days rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine five days rigorous imprisonment. The trial was under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of Atricity Act.
2. Today when the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela has submitted that both the parties have settled the dispute and stated that it was a dispute, which arose earlier on account of some misunderstanding, while on that day there was no specific cause for quarrel.
3. Complainant – Bijalbhai Sukabhai Vasava is present before this Court and accused is also present along with his advocate. The complainant stated that he has settled the dispute with the accused. The original settlement deed is produced on record. The photographs of both the parties are on the settlement deed. The deed is signed before the Notary Public, which is supported by copy of Aadhar Card.
4. This Court verified from the complainant, whether the settlement is on his own volition. On that, complainant stated that they are peacefully staying in the village and no grievance or grudge remain and he on his own will settled the dispute with the accused and, thus, seeks permission to compound the offence.
5. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt taking objection to the settlement submitted that the object of the Atrocity Act is requried to be followed, as such settlement would encourage other people to continue with such type of offence.
6. The offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable, hence, in view of the provision under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence stands compounded, where according to the provision for compounding the offence under Section 323 IPC, no permission from this Court is required to be sought.
7. 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.”
8. In a similar way, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sund
