The Gujarat High Court has clarified that while offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable, such settlements cannot override the non-compoundable nature of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This ruling reinforces the statutory intent behind the Atrocity Act to protect marginalized communities from caste-based humiliation, irrespective of private reconciliation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants were convicted under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from an altercation in a village where the complainant, Ashokbhai Vasawa, died during the incident, and his brother Bharatbhai Vasawa, the injured victim, alleged that the appellants used casteist language to humiliate him in public.
Procedural History
- 2006: Special Atrocity Case No.31 filed against the appellants
- 17.06.2008: Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, convicted appellants under all three provisions
- 2008: Appeal filed before the Gujarat High Court challenging conviction under the Atrocity Act
- 2026: Appeal heard by Justice Gita Gopi, with victim appearing virtually and submitting an affidavit of compromise
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the conviction under the Atrocity Act on grounds that the parties had settled the dispute with community mediation and that the IPC offences were compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. They requested the Court to accept the victim’s affidavit as conclusive evidence of compromise.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a private settlement between parties, even if valid for compoundable IPC offences, can lead to quashing of a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which is explicitly non-compoundable and serves a public interest objective.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on Section 320(1)(a) of the Cr.PC, which permits compounding of offences under Section 323 and Section 504 IPC without court permission. They argued that since the victim had filed a sworn affidavit expressing willingness to compromise and had appeared virtually before the Court, the spirit of reconciliation under Section 320 Cr.PC should extend to the entire case, including the Atrocity Act charge. They cited Prathvi Raj Chauhan to suggest that courts may exercise discretion under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash proceedings in exceptional cases.
For the Respondent
The State contended that Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act is a non-compoundable offence designed to protect the dignity of Scheduled Castes and Tribes from public humiliation rooted in caste prejudice. The State emphasized that the Act’s preamble and judicial interpretations in Nandini Sundar and Prathvi Raj Chauhan affirm its public interest character. The State argued that allowing compounding would undermine the deterrent purpose of the Act and permit perpetrators to evade accountability through private negotiation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Atrocity Act and its constitutional underpinnings. It noted that while Section 320 Cr.PC permits compounding of certain IPC offences, Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act is not listed among compoundable offences under any provision of law. The Court emphasized that the Act is not merely a penal statute but a protective instrument rooted in Article 17 and the constitutional mandate of fraternity.
"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."
The Court distinguished Prathvi Raj Chauhan, clarifying that while Section 482 Cr.PC allows quashing in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process, it does not permit quashing where the offence involves intentional humiliation of a Scheduled Caste member in public view. The Court found no evidence that the insult was incidental or non-casteist; the context of the altercation, the public nature of the insult, and the victim’s identity as a member of a Scheduled Caste were sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 3(1)(x).
The Court further held that even if the IPC offences were compounded, the Atrocity Act charge stands independently as a distinct statutory violation with its own public interest dimension. The victim’s affidavit, while admissible for compounding IPC offences, cannot extinguish a crime against the State’s duty to uphold constitutional dignity.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed only to the extent of quashing the convictions under Section 323 and Section 504 IPC, which were compounded by the victim’s affidavit. However, the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act was upheld. The appellants were acquitted of IPC charges but remained convicted under the Atrocity Act. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with sentencing under the Atrocity Act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Atrocity Act Convictions Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must advise clients that settlements cannot override convictions under the Atrocity Act, even if ancillary IPC charges are compoundable
- Courts will not entertain applications under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash Atrocity Act charges merely on grounds of compromise
- The victim’s consent is irrelevant to the maintainability of the prosecution under the Act
IPC and Atrocity Act Charges Are Independent
- Prosecutors must treat charges under the Atrocity Act as separate from IPC offences, even when arising from the same incident
- Defence counsel cannot rely on compounding of IPC offences to argue for dismissal of Atrocity Act charges
- Courts must apply a two-track analysis: one for compoundable IPC offences, another for non-compoundable statutory offences
Public Interest Overrides Private Compromise
- The public nature of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) - humiliation in public view - means the State is the real aggrieved party
- Judicial discretion under Section 482 Cr.PC cannot be used to circumvent legislative intent
- Lawyers must prepare for sentencing hearings under the Atrocity Act even after settlement of related IPC charges
