Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently dismissed criminal proceedings against a man accused of adultery, emphasizing that a conviction under Section 497 of the IPC was impossible since the provision had already been struck down as unconstitutional.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol allowed an appeal filed by one Krishna Chandra against the Allahabad High Court's order of May 26, 2023, which declined to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and rejected his plea.

The appellant sought quashment of the entire proceedings, summoning order and also the non-bailable warrant issued against him in connection with the complaint case, wherein he was arraigned as an accused.

The counsel for the appellant would submit that in the light of the exposition of law by the top court in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India reported in (2019), there was absolutely no question of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as the said provision was declared as unconstitutional by the top court. 

"The position that the said section was declared as unconstitutional is indisputable," the bench said.

When this being the indisputable position, the question is whether the proceedings in the complaint case against the appellant be permitted to continue, the bench questioned.

Referring to the State of Haryana and Ors Vs Bhajan Lal and Ors (1992), the bench pointed out that it had been 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 CrPC should be exercised. 

"There is no dispute with respect to the position that the accusation against the appellant/accused No 5 in complaint case is only commission of offence under Section 497, IPC," the bench said.

After having heard counsel on both sides, the bench said, "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, we have no hesitation to hold that it is absolutely unnecessary to permit continuance of the proceedings in complaint case qua the appellant".

The court held that the impugned order of May 26, 2023, passed by the high court would invite interference.

The bench, thus, set aside the high court's order and quashed the entire proceedings against the appellant pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Uttar Pradesh and summoning order and the non bailable warrant issued against him.

The high court, in its order, had said the present matter did not fall in any of categories recognised by the apex court which could justify interference of the court in order to quash the summoning order.

Case Title: Krishna Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr