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 Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026 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. Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026
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 Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026 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 Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026 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 Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026 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."Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026
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 Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026 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 Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 00:06:26 IST 2026