Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sundari Devi @ Rajkumari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68541
1 MCRC-53748-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53748 of 2025
SUNDARI DEVI @ RAJKUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Kumar Kashyap - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sulekha Sharma - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the legality, validity, propriety and sustainability of impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.278/2025 by which the revision petition preferred against the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur in RCT No.3310650/2014 by which the application of petitioner under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground that the accused was not present.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication in the matter are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized way back. After marriage, some disputes were arose and consequently, the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 19-12-2025 15:08:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68541 2 MCRC-53748-2025 got registered a criminal case under Crime No.329/2014 at Police Station Cantt., District Jabalpur against the respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294 and 506 of IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, the police Authority filed a charge-sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur and the said Court vide order dated 10.09.2014 taken cognizance under Sections 498A, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC against the respondent No.2.
4. During the pendency of the trial, respondent No.2 absconded, thus the trial Court issued a perpetual arrest warrant against him and the said file sent to record room.
5. During the said period, the relatives of the petitioner and respondent No.2 become normal then both the persons decided to live with each other. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.06.2025 dismissed the application by holding that the respondent No.2 is not present.
6. Against the said impugned order, revision was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2025.
7. The petitioner by filing this petition challenged the said order dated 09.10.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding the offences under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. may be filed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 19-12-2025 15:08:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68541 3 MCRC-53748-2025 victim only and for that purpose, the presence of accused person is not required. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.P. Baiju Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2008 CRILJ 928.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has advanced the arguments that the petitioner has only challenged the order of revisional Court and he has not challenged the order of trial Court. Thus, the petitioner could not get the relief.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.P. Baiju (supra) , it is held that when a particular offence is compoundable by a particular person, it is not even necessary for the Court to insist on a joint petition by that person and the accused. Even if the person who is entitled to compound the offence by himself files a petition before the Court stating that the matter has been compoundable and the case may be closed the Court will be bound to accept the same and close the case except in appropriate cases where it is felt that permission to compound the offence will have to be refused and the accused person is absconding. The relief para no.22 is reproduced as under:-
22. I shall now attempt to narrate my conclusions. They are:
(1) Composition under Section 320, Cr.P.C. is a unilateral act. (2) The victim (person shown in column 3 of Section 320(1) and 320(2) can himself make an application for composition. (3) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on a joint application for composition. The victim can of course make a joint application along with the accused.
(4) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on the personal Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 19-12-2025 15:08:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68541 4 MCRC-53748-2025 appearance of the accused before Court to consider an application for composition under Section 320, Cr.P.C.(5) The mere fact that the Court has already issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused and that is pending is no reason for the Court not to proceed further with the case. All steps for which personal presence of the accused is not necessary can be continued even if the non-bailable warrant remains unexecuted and the accused has not personally appeared.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that due to family dispute, FIR was registered and respondent No.2 is absconded, thus the trial Court issued a perpetual arrest warrant against him but subsequently, in the span of time, the relationship of petitioner and respondent No.2 as disturbed earlier is reframed and reconstituted. Thus, application was filed and the same was rejected only on the ground that accused was not present. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.P. Baiju (supra) has clearly held that compounding application may be filed by wife alone and the trial Court could not be rejected the same in the absence of accused.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the oral prayer made by the petitioner as well as in order to reinstate the marital life of petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur and impugned order dated 10.09.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur are hereby set- aside.
13. The learned trial Court is directed to deal with the petitioner's application and decide the same in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 19-12-2025 15:08:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68541 5 MCRC-53748-2025 Apex Court in the case of Y.P. Baiju (supra) by passing a reasoned order within a period of one month.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order along with the records of the Courts below be remitted back to them for information and necessary compliance.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI) JUDGE NP Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 19-12-2025 15:08:42