CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 844 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc
RESPONDENT:
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2008
BENCH:
Tarun Chatterjee & Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2008.
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4032 OF 2006]
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another .. Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in
Criminal Misc. Case Nos.5070, 5071 and 5072 of 2005.
2
3. Appellant, Dr. Arvind Barsaul, and respondent no.2,
Smt. Sadhna Madnawat, are both medical doctors. They were
married on 08.02.1992. Respondent no.2 did not want to stay
with the appellant husband and she wanted him to leave his
parents and stay at Gwalior with her parents. The appellant
husband did not agree to this condition. According to the
appellant husband, thereafter, she started levelling allegations
of impotency against him and started behaving cruelly with
him, his parents and relatives. Respondent no.2 ultimately
deserted the appellant husband and went back to Gwalior.
4. On 18.10.1994, the appellant husband sent a legal
notice to respondent no.2 for divorce and thereafter filed a
petition for divorce before the Civil Judge, Mathura being case
No.581 of 1994. On 07.11.1994, respondent no.2 as a
counter-blast filed a criminal complaint at Mahila Thana,
Padaw against the appellant husband, appellant Smt.
Pushplata Barsaul (mother-in-law) and appellant Shri
Chitranjan Singh Barsaul (father-in-law).
3
5. On 3.11.1996, a decree of divorce was granted by mutual
consent of the parties. Respondent no.2 filed Criminal Case
No.913 of 1995 against appellant husband and Rajendra
Singh (appellants sisters husband) under sections
294/506/34 IPC and another Criminal Case No.1215 of 1998
against the appellant husband along with Gokul Singh and
Vinod Singh. In both the cases, the trial court vide its
judgments dated 17.4.2000 and 30.3.1999 respectively
acquitted the appellants and other accused.
6. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior vide his
judgment and order dated 7.2.2005 convicted the appellants
under section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment
of 18 months and a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of 10 days.
7. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
filed an appeal before the Second Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Gwalior. During the pendency of the appeal,
the parties sorted out their differences and filed three separate
petitions for recording the compromise in the criminal
4
proceedings. The First Appellate Court rejected the
compromise petition stating that the offence under section
498-A IPC is not liable of compromise.
8. The appellants being aggrieved from the said judgment of
the First Appellate Court filed three separate petitions under
section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing the
proceedings pending in the court of Second Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The High Court also declined to
interfere in the matter. The appellants being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of the High Court have preferred this
appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the
parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on
behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is
not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be
pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and
educated families. It was also submitted that the appellants
parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of
advanced age. The appellants father is a retired Professor
5
and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone
transplant of his kidney and the appellants mother is
suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt.
Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not
want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in
exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution,
deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending
against the appellants emanating from the FIR lodged under
section 498-A IPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
..................................J.
(Tarun Chatterjee)
..................................J.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
New Delhi;
May 8, 2008.
