In a decisive ruling that reinforces the constitutional invalidity of the now-abolished adultery law, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has quashed criminal proceedings against a Jaipur man accused under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The order, delivered by Justice Anand Sharma on November 3, 2025, makes it clear that prosecutions under Section 497 cannot continue even if they were initiated before the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019).
Background
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a husband against his wife’s alleged relationship with her former student. The complainant claimed that his wife, a teacher at Saint Soldier School in Jaipur, had developed an “illicit physical relationship” with the petitioner, leading to registration of FIR No. 434/2013 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar.
After investigation, police submitted a negative final report, citing lack of evidence and describing the complaint as based merely on suspicion. However, following a revision petition, the matter was remanded, and the trial court took cognizance in 2017 under Section 497 IPC - the old adultery provision.
The accused challenged this order before the revisional court, which in 2018 dismissed his plea, holding that the Joseph Shine verdict - delivered later that year - would operate only prospectively. That prompted the petitioner to move the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings entirely.
Court's Observations
Justice Anand Sharma examined whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine - which struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional - would have retrospective effect. The bench noted that the Constitution Bench had held the provision violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21, and had not limited the declaration to future cases.
“The declaration of unconstitutionality,” the judge remarked, “did not contain any qualification restricting its operation prospectively. 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.”
Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that Joseph Shine applied prospectively, Justice Sharma cited multiple High Court rulings - including Satyam Sudarshan v. State of Telangana, Chetan Kumar v. State of Punjab, and Rupesh v. Charandas - which had uniformly held that prosecutions under Section 497 IPC must be quashed irrespective of when they were filed.
The judge further observed that allowing such cases to proceed under a law already declared void would “amount to gross abuse of the process of law” and risk “miscarriage of justice.”
“The retrospective application,” the court said, “is necessary to fully uphold constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and privacy, which would resultantly invalidate all pending prosecutions under the abolished law.”
Decision
Concluding that the orders of both the trial and revisional courts were legally unsustainable, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case.
Justice Sharma stated:
“The declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC by the Hon’ble Supreme Court operates retrospectively, nullifying all pending prosecutions based solely on that provision.”
Accordingly, the court set aside the orders dated February 20, 2017, and November 20, 2018, and quashed all proceedings arising from FIR No. 434/2013.
However, the bench clarified that this decision would not impact any separate civil or matrimonial proceedings between the parties, if ongoing.
With that, the court disposed of the petition reaffirming once again that adultery, while possibly a moral or marital wrong, can no longer be treated as a criminal offence in India.
