Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Anuj Sharma, S/o. Shri D.D. Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP – Respondent
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 89 of 2019
Decided On : 03-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court'), whereby cognizance was taken against him for the offence punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ' IPC '), and order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court'), whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the cognizance order was dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the marriage of Respondent No. 2-the complainant was solemnized on 09.04.2000 with Smt. Purnima @ Neetu. Two children were born out of their wedlock. The complainant lodged a complaint before the trial court alleging that his wife, who was working as a teacher at Saint Soldier School, Jaipur, had developed physical relations with the petitioner, who happened to be her student. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 434/2013 was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for commission of offence punishable under Section 497 IPC .
3. After investigation, the police submitted a negative final report finding absence of any evidence in support of allegations in FIR and observing that the FIR appeared to have been lodged merely on suspicion. A divorce petition between the complainant and his wife had already been filed in the year 2005.
4. The complainant filed a protest petition, which was dismissed and the negative final report was accepted by the trial court vide order dated 16.12.2014. However, in revision petition filed by the complainant, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, after remand, the trial court vide order dated 20.02.2017 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC .
5. The petitioner challenged cognizance order dated 20.02.2017 before the revisional court by way of filing of revision petition. During pendency of the said revision petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.09.2018 delivered judgment in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India , 2019(3) SCC 39 striking down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Nevertheless, the Revisional Court dismissed petitioner’s revision vide order dated 20.11.2018 holding that the judgment of Joseph Shine (supra) would operate prospectively and, therefore, would not affect proceedings already pending prior to 27.09.2018.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. contending that once Section 497 IPC has been struck down, any prosecution or cognizance taken under the said provision stands vitiated and non-est in law.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders dated 20.02.2017 and 20.11.2018 are wholly unsustainable in law. It is argued that after the declaration made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine (supra), Section 497 IPC has been decriminalised and on account of being struck down, it ceased to exist from inception and all proceedings founded thereupon would automatically abate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in the cases of Satyam Sudarshan v. The State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No. 1513/2019 decided by Single Bench of Telangana High Court on 03.08.2022); Chetan Kumar v. State of Punjab & Others, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6290; Rupesh v. Charandas & Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6292; Devraj Dev v. State of Bihar & Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 431 and Ashok Kumar Singh v. State through Secretary, GNCT of
Section 497 IPC's unconstitutionality applies retrospectively, nullifying prosecutions based on it, to safeguard constitutional rights and prevent legal abuse.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the unconstitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as declared by the Supreme Court, which rendered the petitioner's conviction and....
The court affirmed that Section 258 Cr.P.C. applies only to summons cases, and once cognizance is taken under Section 494 IPC, it cannot be quashed without merit.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 when the parties amicably settle their dispute and continuation of proceedings would cause extreme injustice.
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 High Court can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes if the parties have divorced and the informant does not wish to proceed, to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justic....
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings if extraordinary circumstances arise, such as marriage between accused and victim, even in serious non-compoun....
Point of law : The rule of construction laid down in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also requires that reference to the repealed enactment made in any instrument be construed as reference....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
