HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6652 / 2017
Ramratan S/o Bhanwarlal B/c Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Bhavpura Bargoti Ki Dhani, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Police Station
Bassi, District Jaipur.
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.
2. Manju Meena D/o Om Prakash Meena B/c Meena, Aged About
31 Years, R/o House No.174, Govind Nagar Colony, Mandi Road,
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anupama Chaturvedi.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP
Mr. Shiv Lal Verma – for complainant.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and
respondent No.2 Manju Meena is present in person, also
represented through her counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal
before the learned trial court against the petitioner. Some
matrimonial disputes were pending between the parties. A decree
of divorce was passed by the Civil Judge, Dausa vide order dated
06.07.2017 in Civil Suit No.43/2016, as the parties belong to
Scheduled Tribe (Meena). Thereafter, a compromise for the
offence under Section 406 IPC was filed by both the parties before
the learned trial court, which was attested on 08.08.2017 and the
accused-petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section
406 IPC. Now proceeding for the offence under Section 498A is
(2 of 2)
pending trial before the learned trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the matter
has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute, which has been settled
between the parties on the basis of compromise, no purpose is
going to be served by keeping the proceedings pending for trial of
offence under Section 498A IPC. She further submits that after
mutual divorce both the parties have been living separately and
no dispute persists between them.
Complainant – respondent Ms. Manju Meena,who is present
in person admits that the dispute has been amicably resolved
between the parties and he is not interested in pursuing the case
pending against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A
Taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration,
this Court is of the firm view that continuation of the proceedings
for the offence under Section 498A IPC will be a mere formality
and will tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. No useful
purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending. The
dispute between the parties was essentially of private in nature for
which compromise has already taken place between them.
In view of the above, the misc. petition is allowed. The
proceedings pending in Cr. Case No.265/2015 titled as State Vs.
Ramratan Meena pending before the Court of ACJM, Dausa for the
offence under Section 498A IPC is quashed and set-aside.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.