1. Appeal seeking quashment of criminal proceedings, summoning order, and non-bailable warrant under Section 482 CrPC for an offence under Section 497 IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1050
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Krishna Chandra – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4500 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO. 10063 of 2023)
Decided On : 08-11-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that proceedings under Section 497 IPC cannot continue as it was declared unconstitutional, leading to the quashing of the High Court's order.
The court ruled that proceedings under Section 497 IPC cannot continue as it was declared unconstitutional, leading to the quashing of the High Court's order.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.497
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.497
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 497 - Appeal against High Court order - Appellant sought quashment of proceedings under Section 497 IPC, declared unconstitutional in Joseph Shine case - High Court's order allowing proceedings against appellant quashed. (Paras 3-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused in Complaint Case No.1493 of 2017 under Section 497 IPC, which was challenged based on its unconstitutionality.
Findings of Court:
The court found it unnecessary to allow the proceedings to continue against the appellant under the unconstitutional provision.
Issues: Whether the proceedings under Section 497 IPC should continue against the appellant after its declaration as unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings against the appellant were not maintainable due to the unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC.
Result: Appeal allowed, and the High Court's order was quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mrs. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Ms. Chhaya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mrs. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Ms. Chhaya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Submission that proceedings should be quashed as the sole charge under Section 497 IPC was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (Para 3 )
3. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are exercisable when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, particularly when the charge is under an unconstitutional provision. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Criminal proceedings must be quashed if the sole charge is based on a provision declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order, criminal proceedings, summoning order, and non-bailable warrant quashed and set aside. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. When should the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC be exercised to quash criminal proceedings?
The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Para 4 )
7. What is the effect of a statutory provision being declared unconstitutional on pending criminal proceedings based solely on that provision?
If the accusation against an accused is only for the commission of an offence under a provision that has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is unnecessary to permit the continuance of the proceedings, and they should be quashed. (Para 3 , 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No.16490 of 2019. The appellant filed the said application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashment of the entire proceedings, summoning order and also the non-bail warrant issued against him in connection with Complaint Case No.1493 of 2017, wherein he was arraigned as accused No.5.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the light of the exposition of law by this Court in Joseph Shine versus Union of India reported in (2019 (3) SCC 39), there is absolutely no question of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), as the said provision was declared as unconstitutional by this Court. The position that the said section was declared as unconstitutional is indisputable. When this being the indisputable position, the question is whether the proceedings in Complaint Case No.1493/2017 against the appellant be permitted to continue.
4. In the decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), this Court held where the allegations made in the First Information Report or in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, it is a case wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised. There is no dispute with respect to the position that the accusation against the appellant/accused No.5 in Complaint Case No.1493/2017 is only commission of offence under Section 497, IPC.
5. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and in view of the fact that the appellant is charged only for the offence under Section 497 IPC and in the light of the decision of this Court in Joseph Shine’s case (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that it is absolutely unnecessary to permit continuance of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.1493 of 2017 qua the appellant. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the High Court invites interference.
6. Consequently, for the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No.16490 of 2019 stands quashed and set aside.
7. The entire proceedings initiated against the appellant in Complaint Case No.1493 of 2017 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Uttar Pradesh, the summoning order dated 29.01.2018 as well as the non-bailable warrant dated 05.10.2018 issued against the appellant stand quashed and set aside.
