Rajasthan High Court Quashes Adultery Case Citing Retrospective Unconstitutionality

Section 497 IPC Struck Down, Nullifying All Ongoing Prosecutions Following Joseph Shine Judgment

In a significant judgment delivered on November 3, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench, presided by Justice Anand Sharma, quashed the proceedings against petitioner Anuj Sharma under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, rooted in accusations of adultery, was nullified following the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which declared Section 497 unconstitutional.

The petitioner, Anuj Sharma, had been accused by the complainant, alleging that Sharma had engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant's wife. Despite a negative final report from the police, suggesting lack of evidence and the complaint being rooted in mere suspicion, the trial court initially took cognizance under Section 497 IPC. Subsequent legal challenges saw the matter reach the Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed Sharma's revision petition on grounds of the Supreme Court's decision having prospective effect only.

Justice Anand Sharma, however, overturned this stance, emphasizing the retrospective application of the Supreme Court's ruling. "Once Section 497 IPC is declared unconstitutional, it is void ab initio, nullifying all pending prosecutions founded upon it," Justice Sharma stated. The court underscored that the Supreme Court's decision in Joseph Shine, which deemed Section 497 violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, applies retrospectively, thus quashing any ongoing cases based on the now-invalid provision.

The judgment aligns with various High Court decisions across India, including those from Punjab & Haryana, Telangana, and Bombay, which have consistently upheld the retrospective application of the Supreme Court's ruling. These judgments collectively assert that prosecutions under Section 497, initiated prior to the Joseph Shine decision, cannot legally stand post the declaration of unconstitutionality.

Justice Sharma's ruling also addressed concerns regarding abuse of legal process, stating, "Continuing prosecution under a provision declared unconstitutional amounts to gross abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice."

The court's decision not only quashes the proceedings against Anuj Sharma but also sets a precedent for similar cases across the country, reinforcing the principle that unconstitutional laws cannot serve as a basis for legal actions, irrespective of their initiation date.

Bottom Line:

Declaration of Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine case applies retrospectively, nullifying all pending prosecutions based on that provision.

Statutory provision(s): Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 497 Indian Penal Code, 1860

Anuj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2807084