http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

                                                            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).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

                                                           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    (appellant’s     sister’s   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

                                                         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 appellant’s

parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of

advanced age.   The appellant’s father is a retired Professor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

                                                                5

and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone

transplant of his kidney and the appellant’s 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.