Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashish Pasvan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68760




                                                                1                           MCRC-53751-2025
                                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. 53751 of 2025
                                                       ASHISH PASVAN
                                                           Versus
                                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Shiv Kumar Kashyap - counsel for the petitioner
                                 Ms.Sulekha Sharma - Panel Lawyer for State

                                                                 ORDER

This petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned order dated 30/10/2025 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.), in RCT No. 2905986/2015.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication in the present are that on the complaint of the petitioner, a criminal case bearing Crime No. 482/2014 was registered at Police Station Cantt, District Jabalpur, against respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 427, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered as Criminal Case No. 2905986/2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

3. After completion of the investigation, the police authorities filed a charge-sheet in the absence of respondent No. 2. The learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, issued a perpetual arrest warrant against respondent No. 2 vide order dated 27/04/2019.

4. During the pendency of the criminal trial, the petitioner and respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68760 2 MCRC-53751-2025 No. 2 entered into a compromise and agreed to resolve their dispute through an amicable settlement.

5. Resultantly, the petitioner filed an application under Section 359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the trial Court seeking permission to compound the offences. However, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25/06/2025, dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that the procedure for compounding the offences during trial cannot be unilateral.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District Jabalpur (M.P.), which was registered as CRR No. 279/2025. The learned Revisional Court held that the learned trial Court, in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Y.P. Baiju v. State of Kerala , reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 28, committed illegality in rejecting the application in toto. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

7. Against the said order the instant petition has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Y.P. Baiju (supra) , the process of compounding the offences is unilateral and can be initiated solely at the instance of the victim and such application can be considered even in the absence of the accused. It is further submitted that Revisional Court committed an illegality in remanding the matter to the trial Court for compounding the offences under Sections 323, 506, 427, and 294 of the IPC, while also directing respondent No. 2 to appear before the trial Court. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the process of compounding is unilateral, then there is no necessity for appearance of accused person.

9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68760 3 MCRC-53751-2025

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Y.P. Baiju (supra) , has held that the process of compounding is unilateral and may be initiated at the instance of the victim and that such an application can be considered even in the absence of the accused.

11. In the present case, the learned trial Court rejected the application in toto, whereas the Revisional Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the application for compounding of offences and also directed the respondent no.2 to appear before the trial court.

12. Thus, the impugned order, to the aforesaid extent, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

13. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is modified to the extent that the trial Court shall decide the petitioner's application for compounding the offences afresh in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in in Y.P. Baiju v. State of Kerala (supra).

Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is hereby disposed of.

(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI) JUDGE S /-