Adultery Prosecutions Pending When Section 497 IPC Was Struck Down Cannot Continue: Rajasthan High Court

The complainant alleged that his wife had developed physical relations with the petitioner, and an FIR was registered under Section 497 IPC (para 2). The police filed a negative final report, finding no evidence and observing that the FIR appeared to rest merely on suspicion (para 3). The magistrate accepted the report on 16.12.2014, but after a remand in the complainant's revision took cognizance against the petitioner on 20.02.2017 (para 4). While the petitioner's revision was pending, the Supreme Court decided Joseph Shine on 27.09.2018 (para 5). The revisional court nevertheless dismissed the revision on 20.11.2018, holding that Joseph Shine operates prospectively (para 6). The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (paras 1, 7).

The question was whether Joseph Shine, which struck down Section 497 IPC as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21, applies to cases pending when it was decided (paras 11-12). The Court explained that prospective overruling lets courts apply new principles only to future cases to preserve stability, but Section 497 was struck down for violating fundamental rights, so the declaration applies retrospectively to pending cases: prosecutions under a law void ab initio cannot stand, and retrospective effect is needed to uphold equality, dignity and privacy (para 13). The declaration carried no qualification restricting it to future cases, and a provision declared unconstitutional cannot be the basis of any prosecution, even a pending one (para 14). The Court relied on consistent rulings of the Telangana, Punjab and Haryana, Bombay, Patna and Delhi High Courts ending pending Section 497 proceedings (paras 15-19), and rejected the Public Prosecutor's objection based on prospective operation (para 20). On the facts, the investigation had ended in a negative final report, the cognizance order lacked clarity and evidentiary foundation, and continuing the prosecution under a void provision would be a gross abuse of process causing a miscarriage of justice (para 21).