Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Y.P. Baiju vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 30 October, 2007

Sundari Devi @ Rajkumari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025

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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Moidheen vs Abdul Jaleel on 14 October, 2014

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No. 67/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the complaint of one Abdul Jaleel, who is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. The accused now seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have settled the dispute amicably out of court. Practically, what is reported is composition. When composition with permission or without permission is possible, under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the parties will have to approach the trial court, and have the composition recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, expressed concern that the trial court will insist on the presence of the accused. No doubt, the decision of this Court in Y.P. Baiju v. State of Kerala and Others [2007(4)KLT 1082] will have Crl.M.C.. No. 4945/2014 2 to be followed by the trial court.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Ubaid - Full Document

State vs . Sanjay Paharia. on 2 June, 2017

9. Record reveals that on 30.03.2017, the complainant  had appeared before the court and has given in writing that she does not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, it is clear from her statement that complainant had compounded the present   case     unilaterally   for   offence   u/s   411   IPC.     Since   compounding   is   a unilateral act  (Y.P.Bajju vs State of Kerala & Ors. On 30.10.2007, Kerala High Court),   therefore   matter   stands   compounded   u/s.   411   IPC.   Accused   stands acquitted u/s 411 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1