Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HIRABHAI JHAVERBHAI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OHS.

Decided
9 April 2010
Judges listed
J.M. PANCHAL, S.S. NIJJAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 498 · 2010 INSC 203
Also cited as
  • (2010) 6 SCC 688 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted.

p. 499, margin B

Unnumbered paragraph

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 14, 2006, rendered by the learned .Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 1994 by which the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 324 1.P .C. and imposition of sentence of S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.250/- in default simple imprisonment of 15 days vide judgment dated April 30, · 1994 passed by the learned Addi.Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.131 of 1987 rs confirmed. The appeal is also directed against judgment dated November 9, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.12531 of 2006 by seeking permission of the Court to compound offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is rejected.

p. 499, margin B

Unnumbered paragraph

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

p. 499, margin E

Unnumbered paragraph

From the record it is evident that the incident in question took place on July 23, 1986. Pursuant to the order dated January 29, 2010 passed by this Court in the instant matter, the complainant and injured are impleaded as respondents and are represented through their learned counsel. They have filed affidavit stating that the disputes between the parties have been settled with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. They have also expressed their willingness to compound the offence. This Court finds that after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 from June 23, 2006 the offence u/s 324 IPC is made non-compoundable. However, in this case offence u/s 324 IPC was committed on July 23, 1986 on which date it was compoundable with the permission of the Court. As the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the case, offence u/s 324 IPC would be compoundable with the permission of the Court. In view of the statement, made by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in their affidavit and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cai;e, permission to compound the offence deserves to be granted to the original complainant and the injured.

pp. 499–500, margin F

Unnumbered paragraph

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The two judgments impugned :n the appeal are set aside. The injured complainant and two other injured are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the composition of offence u/s 324 IPC shall have the effect of an acquittal of the appellant with whom the~ offence has been compounded. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 500, margin C