Jharkhand High Court
Prashant Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2023
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 95 of 2020
------
Prashant Kumar Prasad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bishwajit Sanyal ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ayub Ansari, Advocate
--------
Order No. 08 / Dated: 17th January, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for opposite party No 2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the prosecution including the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Court below in Complaint Case No. 201 of 2006 filed for the offence punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
It is further submitted that opposite party No. 2 had filed a Complaint Case alleging the offence punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner had an intimate relationship with the wife of opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 3 SCC 39, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code has been held to be unconstitutional and therefore, the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 is bad in law and fit to be set aside as the entire prosecution case has become infructuous in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by which the offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code has been decriminalized.
It is also pointed out by the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on earlier occasion the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, has dismissed the complaint petition on merit by order dated 09.03.2006 and thereafter, the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had moved to the Court of Additional -2- Cr.M.P. No. 95 of 2020 Sessions Judge-IX, by which the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, was set aside and directed to proceed with the criminal proceeding for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter an application was moved by this petitioner to dismiss the complaint case in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (Supra), but the same has been rejected on the ground inter-alia that it is at belated stage.
On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, did not controvert the fact that the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code has been decriminalized by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 3 SCC 39, and opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of both the parties it is found that the learned Court below is proceeding against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which has been held unconstitutional and the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code has been decriminalized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (Supra).
In view of the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 is bad in law and this criminal proceeding cannot proceed in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra) under the pretext that the petitioner has raised the ground at the belated stage at the fag end of the trial.
Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is allowed and the order dated 13.09.2019 is quashed being an abuse of the process of the Court in the interest of justice.
J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)