Rajasthan High Court Rules Section 497 IPC Void Ab Initio, Quashes Pending Adultery Prosecution

In a significant ruling clarifying the reach of constitutional protections, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India , which decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), applies retrospectively. Justice Anand Sharma, presiding over the Jaipur Bench, ordered the quashing of a long-standing criminal proceeding that had been initiated under the defunct provision.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The legal saga began with a complaint filed by a husband against his wife and a student, the petitioner, alleging an extra-marital affair. The complaint transpired back in 2013, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 497 IPC . Despite the police submitting a "negative final report" due to a lack of evidence, the trial court initially took cognizance of the matter in 2017.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment, legal uncertainty lingered for those with pending cases. While the petitioner sought to close the matter, the revisional court had previously insisted that the Supreme Court's ruling operated only prospectively, refusing to discharge the accused.

Arguments and Judicial Reasoning

The petitioner challenged the ongoing proceedings, arguing that since Section 497 had been declared unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21, it must be treated as void ab initio —invalid from its very inception.

The State, however, urged the High Court to apply the "doctrine of prospective overruling," suggesting that the criminal case, having been instituted prior to the 2018 Supreme Court ruling, should continue to its conclusion.

Justice Anand Sharma dismantled this argument by emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s declaration in Joseph Shine was categorical. The High Court noted that when a law is found to violate fundamental rights, it does not survive to haunt pending litigations. Drawing on a series of supporting precedents—including rulings from the Telangana, Punjab and Haryana, Bombay, Patna, and Delhi High Courts—the court affirmed that pending prosecutions cannot be sustained under an abolished, unconstitutional statute.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the non-survivability of prosecutions based on laws struck down by constitutional benches:

• "Once a provision is declared unconstitutional, it becomes void ab initio and cannot be the basis of any prosecution thereafter or even in respect of pending proceedings."
• "The declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC ... operates retrospectively, nullifying all pending prosecutions based solely on that provision."
• "Allowing the prosecution to continue in such circumstances, particularly under a provision now held void, would amount to gross abuse of process of law."
• "The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Shine (supra) applies to all pending proceedings, as the striking down of a penal provision renders it void from inception."

Final Decision and Implications

The Rajasthan High Court formally allowed the petition, setting aside the 2017 cognizance order and the subsequent 2018 revision order. By quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings, the court has provided much-needed relief to the petitioner.

Critically, the Court clarified that while the criminal prosecution is effectively buried, this judgment remains strictly limited to criminal proceedings and does not preclude any independent civil or matrimonial disputes between the parties. This ruling reinforces the principle that once a law is found to violate the dignity and equality of citizens, it ceases to hold sway over the legal system at every stage, including ongoing trials.