Quashed

Siddharth Batta Th. His Father Sh.Rajan Batta v. State of J and K Th. the Commissioner Secretary to Govt.

J&K HC5 Nov 2020CRM(M)/345/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that criminal proceedings under Section 497 RPC do not survive following Supreme Court declarations rendering the provision unconstitutional. Consequently, the complaint and related proceedings were quashed, and the petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No. 245/Comp and all proceedings thereunder quashed; petitions disposed of.

Siddharth Batta Th. His Father Sh.Rajan Batta Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

Sr. No. 212

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)

¶3

CRM(M) 345/2019 CrlM 831/2019 CRM(M) 290/2019 CrlM 831/2019 Siddharth Batta .....petitioner(s) Shweta Gupta

¶4

Through :- Mr. K.S.Johal Sr. Advocate with
Mr. K.S.Johal Advocate in CRM(M)
345/2019
Mr. Rakesh Chargotra Advocate in
CRM(M) 290/2019.
V/s
State and ors .....Respondent(s)
Rahul Goel and another

¶5

Through :- None for R-1&2. Mr. Rakesh Chargotra Advocate for R-3 in CRM(M) No. 345/2019 Mr. K.S.Johal Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S.Johal Advocate in CRM(M) 290/2019.

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶7

ORDER

¶8

1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant-respondent No.2 has since expired and, as such, the complaint filed before the Court of learned Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the „trial Court‟), which is subject matter of instant petition, cannot proceed further. He has further submitted that even otherwise

¶9

¶10

the provisions contained in Section 497 RPC have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case titled Rajnish Bhandari vs.

¶11

Union of India 2019(12) SCALE 804’.

¶12

2 The Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India,(2019) 3 SCC 39 has declared the provisions contained in Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional and the same have been struck down. The petitioner in the instant case is facing prosecution in a criminal complaint before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 497 RPC (now repealed), which is in pari materia to Section 497 IPC. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Bhandari (supra) had an occasion to consider, whether the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine‟s case (supra) would apply to case a case involving prosecution under Section 497 RPC. The Court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to observe as under:

¶13

“ Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having perused Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932, applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we are of the view that, given our judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, the pari materia provision contained in Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code be also declared as violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. The sentence “In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor”, which does not occur in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot stand by itself in view of the fact that the expression used is „In such case‟. The entire Section is, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. The fact that this statement of law in the Ranbir Penal Code is Signature Not Verified the exact opposite of the statement of law, so far as the wife is concerned, of that contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is of no consequence.

¶14

We are, therefore, of the view that nothing survives against the appellant on charges relatable to Section 497 Penal Code. So far as Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, the appellant has already been acquitted, subject to confirmation.

¶15

¶16

The Armed Forces Tribunal judgment dated 08.01.2019 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal stands allowed”.

¶17

3 In view of what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the complaint bearing No. 245/Comp titled “Rahul

¶18

Goel vs. Siddarth Bhatta” pending adjudication before the trial Court, does not survive. The same along with the proceedings initiated thereon are quashed.

¶19