SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramratan vs State Of Raj And Anr on 8 January, 2018

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.


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

case for the offence under Sections 498A 406 IPC was pending

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.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation