The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) allowed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, effectively ending the prosecution under the invalidated provision, and affirming the retrospective application of Joseph Shine v. Union of India[1].
The case arose from an FIR lodged alleging adulterous relations between the petitioner and the wife of the complainant. Police investigation had submitted a negative final report citing no evidence beyond suspicion, which was accepted by the trial court.
However, upon remand, cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 497 IPC via a cognizance order dated 20 February 2017. Section 497 IPC was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on 27 September 2018 in Joseph Shine v. Union of India.
A revisional petition challenging cognizance was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 20 November 2018 relying on the doctrine of prospective overruling, thus not applying Joseph Shine decision retrospectively. The petitioner invoked Section 482 CrPC before the Rajasthan High Court for quashing the orders and proceedings.
The petitioner invoked the Supreme Court’s Joseph Shine judgment which struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that any proceeding under this provision must automatically abate.
The respondent contended that the doctrine of prospective overruling applies and therefore the case predating the judgment should not be affected.
The Bench comprising Justice Anand Sharma followed the principle laid down in Major General A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur[2] that Supreme Court rulings declaring laws unconstitutional apply retrospectively to all pending proceedings.
The court affirmed that the retrospective effect of the Joseph Shine verdict is binding and applies to all pending prosecutions, overruling the doctrine of prospective overruling in this instance due to fundamental constitutional rights at stake. The court emphasized that the continued prosecution under void ab initio Section 497 IPC amounts to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.
In result, both the order taking cognizance and the revisional court’s order dismissing challenge were quashed. The judgment, however, clarifies that independent civil or matrimonial proceedings remain unaffected.
Appearances:
For Petitioner: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.
[1] 2019(3) SCC 39
[2] (1986) 2 SCC 709
