Digest of Important provisions of Criminal Procedure Code

 

1) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 1)(S 1 to S 105 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part-1.html

2) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 2)(S 105-A to S 176 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part.html

3) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 3)(S 177 to S 237 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part_11.html

4) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 4)(S 238 to S 326 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part_0.html

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 4)(S 238 to S 326 of CRPC)

 Chapter XIX

TRIAL OF WARRANT-CASES BY MAGISTRATES

A.—Cases instituted on a police report

238. Compliance with Section 207.—When, in any warrant-case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 207.

239. When accused shall be discharged.—If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 3)(S 177 to S 237 of CRPC)

 Chapter XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.—Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial.—(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or

(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.—When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

180. Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence.—When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 2)(S 105-A to S 176 of CRPC)

 Chapter XII

INFORMATION TO THE POLICE AND THEIR POWERS TO INVESTIGATE

154. Information in cognizable cases.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 1)(S 1 to S 105 of CRPC)

 5. Saving.—Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

Chapter II

CONSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS AND OFFICES

6. Classes of Criminal Courts.

7. Territorial divisions.—

8. Metropolitan areas.

9. Court of Session.

Print Page

Important Supreme Court and Bombay HC Judgments on bail(Part 2)

1)  Supreme court: No automatic arrest in offence U/S 498A of IPC

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

https://www.lawweb.in/2014/07/guidelines-of-supreme-court-to-police.html

2) Supreme Court Guidelines for releasing accused or convict on bail- Satender Kumar Antil Vs.CBI

b) The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

c) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the Accused for grant of bail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Miscellaneous Application No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 

 Satender Kumar Antil  Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: M.M. Sundresh, J.

Decided On: 11.07.2022.

https://www.lawweb.in/2022/08/whether-accused-is-entitled-to-bail-if.html

Print Page

Questions and answers on law part 18

Q 1:-  Whether court can appoint court commissioner as per provision of CRPC?

Ans:- CrPC 284: Section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code

When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued

1. Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Court of Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court or Magistrate may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
   Provided that where the examination of the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory as a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, a commission shall be issued for the examination of such a witness.
2. The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused including the pleader’s fees, be paid by the prosecution.

Q 2:- Whether convict is liable to pay compensation even after he has undergone default sentence in cheque dishonour case?

Ans:- Under Section 357(3), Section 431, Section 70 Indian Penal Code and Section 421(1) proviso would make it clear that by a legal fiction, even though a default sentence has been suffered, yet, compensation would be recoverable in the manner provided Under Section 421(1). This would, however, be without the necessity for recording any special reasons. This is because Section 421(1) proviso contains the disjunctive "or" following the recommendation of the Law Commission, that the proviso to old Section 386(1) should not be a bar to the issue of a warrant for levy of fine, even when a sentence of imprisonment for default has been fully undergone. The last part inserted into the proviso to Section 421(1) as a result of this recommendation of the Law Commission is a category by itself which applies to compensation payable out of a fine Under Section 357(1) and, by applying the fiction contained in Section 431, to compensation payable Under Section 357(3).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 896-897 of 2017

Decided On: 05.05.2017

 Kumaran Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/03/whether-convicted-accused-is-liable-to_10.html

Q 3:- What is distinction between Doctrine of Lis Pendens and Order of Temporary Injunction ?

Ans:- Thus, it is apparent that, both, "the Principle of Lis Pendens" and "the order of temporary injunction", have not only different objects but the breaches thereof have also different consequences. The transaction made in breach of injunction order is apparently and patently illegal and binds no party, even the purchaser. Whereas, transaction effected during lis pendens does not attract the taint of illegality. It remains legal, valid and binding on the parties, subject to the outcome of the litigation. It also does not entail the consequences of penalty or contempt, as there is no order passed by the Court in Doctrine of Lis Pendens.

Bombay High Court

Shri Prakash Gobindram Ahuja vs Shri Ganesh Pandharinath Dhonde ... on 4 October, 2016

https://www.lawweb.in/2016/11/what-is-distinction-between-doctrine-of.html

Q 4:- Whether violation of interim orders passed by court is not punishable if it is subsequently found that court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit?

ANS:- Whether person who disobeys interim injunction made by Civil Court can be punished under Order 39 Rule 2-A where it is ultimately found that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try suit - mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable Court from passing interim Orders - interim Orders comes to end when it is found that Court had no jurisdiction - violation of interim Order can be punished even after question of jurisdiction was decided against plaintiff provided violation is committed before decision of Court on question of jurisdiction.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 16662-66 of 1996

Decided On: 19.02.1997

Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and another  Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. etc.

https://www.lawweb.in/2016/07/whether-violation-of-interim-orders.html

Print Page

Important Supreme Court and Bombay HC Caselaws on S 156(3) of CRPC

1) Supreme Court: Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S 156(3) CrPC Even At Post-Cognizance Stage 

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/10/supreme-court-magistrate-can-invoke.html

2) Whether Magistrate can pass order U/S 156(3) of CRPC under prevention of Corruption Act?

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/08/whether-magistrate-can-pass-order-us.html

3) Whether revision is maintainable if FIR is registered on basis of order passed by Magistrate U/S 156 of CRPC?

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/08/whether-revision-is-maintainable-if-fir.html

4) Whether Magistrate should follow principles laid down by Supreme Court for registration of FIR against doctors under S. 156(3) CrPC?

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/whether-magistrate-should-follow.html

Print Page

Important Judgments on bail(Part 1)

1) How to calculate period for release of accused on default bail U/S167 of crpc in case of surrender of accused? 

https://www.lawweb.in/2015/04/how-to-calculate-period-for-release-of.html

2) Supreme Court: Where offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, accused could be detained up to a period of 90 days 

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/09/where-offence-is-punishable-with.html

3) Magistrate shall release accused on bail when offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years 

https://www.lawweb.in/2012/10/magistrate-shall-release-accused-on.html

Print Page

Important Notes on Criminal Procedure Code

1)Notes on appeal to session court

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-appeal-to-session-court.html

2)Notes on tender of pardon to accomplice

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-tender-of-pardon-to-accomplice.html

3)NOTES ON EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 OF CRPC

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-examination-of-accued-us-313.html

4)NOTES ON BAIL AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER CR.P.C

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-bail-and-anticipatory-bail.html

Print Page

Whether Session judge can direct acquittal of accused even though accused has not adduced his evidence?

The scope of Section 232 in contradiction with section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited. Section 232 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"232. Acquittal.- If after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the judge shall record an order of acquittal."

6. From the wording of the aforementioned provision under Section 232 Cr.P.C. it would be clear that a clear satisfaction has to be recorded by the trial court immediately on completion of the evidence of the prosecution and examining the accused as also hearing the prosecution and the defence for recording acquittal on the ground that there is no evidence that the accused had committed offence.

7. Here in this case, there are 7 accused persons and the Court had to satisfy that it was a case of no evidence against all the accused persons. The word „ no evidence‟ in Section 232 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed or interpreted to mean absence of sufficient evidence for conviction or absence of trustworthy or conclusive evidence in support of the charge. At this stage for deciding as to whether there is evidence to indicate a commission of offence, the Sessions Judge is not required to consider as to what value should be attached to such evidence. 

Difference between S 232 Cr.P.C and S 235 of CrPC 

The object of Section 232 is to expedite the conclusion of trial and at the same time avoid unnecessary harassment to the accused by calling upon him to produce evidence and avoid waste of public time. Nonetheless if there is evidence, the trial court must go on to its course as envisaged in Section 233 and 234 Cr.P.C. before delivering its judgment under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

Patna High Court - Orders

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 February, 2010

Print Page

Why statement of witness is recorded U/S 164 of CRPC?

Object for recording statements of a witness under section 164 of the code is three-fold:

1. To deter witness from changing their versions subsequently: and
2. To get over the immunity from the prosecution in regard to information given by the witness under section 162 of the code. Another reason for recording statement of witnesses under the section 164 of the code is to minimize the chance of changing the versions by the witness at the unit under the fear of being involved in perjury.
3. To obtain authentic version of statement of witness at early stage as it is recorded before Magistrate which has more authenticity than statement recorded before police.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S 156(3) CrPC Even At Post-Cognizance Stage

There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further

investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left

out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361

and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.478-479 OF 2017

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya  Vs  The State of Gujarat 

R.F. Nariman, J.

Dated:October 16, 2019.

Print Page

Whether Criminal court can impound insufficiently stamped document?

 As discussed above, Section 33(2) proviso (a) and Section 35(d) of the Indian Stamp Act are made clear only for limited purpose of deciding the matters under Chapters IX and X of Cr.P.C. In other matters, the Court need not exercise discretion to impound the document and a Magistrate or a Judge of a criminal Court is not required to examine any instrument produced before him or come before him for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not instrument is properly stamped and not required to impound the same, if the same is found properly stamped, if such Magistrate or Judge of criminal Court does not think fit to do so. However, this exception is not applicable to Chapters IX and X of Cr.P.C., 1973. Thus exception created under proviso (a) is purely discretion of the Magistrate or Judge of a criminal Court. It is a settled law that whenever discretion is vested with the Court, it has to be exercised judiciously.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

Crl. P. No. 10057 of 2016

Decided On: 19.01.2017

 Preetesh Kumar Vs.  State of Telangana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

Print Page

Whether Criminal court can appoint Advocate commissioner for recording of evidence?

As per Section 285(1) Cr.P.C no Advocate could be appointed as Commissioner for recording the evidence of witness.

11. Section 286 Cr.P.C is as follows:

286. Execution of commissions.

Upon receipt of the commission, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Chief Judicial Magistrate, or such Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate as he may appoint in this behalf, shall summon the witness before him or proceed to the place where the witness is, and shall take down his evidence in the same manner, and may for this purpose exercise the same powers, as in trials of warrant cases under this Code.

As per Section 286 Cr.P.C., either the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may be appointed as Commissioner for taking down the evidence of the witness.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Criminal Revision Petition No. 1330 of 2006

Decided On: 01.09.2009

 Pankajam Ramaswamy Vs. M.R. Elangovan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T. Sudanthiram, J.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for court to take bail from accused as per S 437A of CRPC if he is acquitted?

437-A. Bail to require accused to appear before the next Appellate Court.- (1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the Higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months.

(2) if such accused fails to appear, the bond stand forfeited and the procedure under section 446 shall apply.

14. In our view, though the section states that trial Court may direct the accused to execute the P.R. Bond with sureties the said directions of execution of P.R. Bond with sureties will have to be treated as directory order and not mandatory order since the said provision will have to be read alongwith other provisions which are there in the Cr.P.C. viz. Sections 441, 445 and, therefore discretion would vest in the trial Court of directing the accused to execute a P.R. Bond and also ensure that his presence is secured in the manner as stated aforesaid in para 13 above.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 1087 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2007

Decided On: 17.10.2011

 Farooq Abdul Gani Surve Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate Has Power To Direct An Accused To Give Voice Samples During Investigation Without His Consent

In the light of the above discussions, we unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2003 OF 2012

RITESH SINHA Vs   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I., Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.


Citation: (2019) 8 SCC 1

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.

Dated:August 02, 2019. 

Print Page

Basic concept of issue estoppel in criminal law

The principle of issue-estoppel is entirely a creature of judicial decisions, and has not been embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The rule of issue-estoppel in a criminal trial is that where an issue of fact has been decided by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding reached in favour of an accused, such a finding constitutes an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence, but as barring the reception of evidence to disturb the finding of fact in a subsequent or different trial of the accused.

The rule of issue-estoppel relates only to the admissibility of evidence which is designed to upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent Court at a previous trial. The rule as to issue-estoppel applies where same issue was distinctly raised and inevitably decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties.

Print Page

Whether Indian citizen who has committed offence outside India can be tried by Indian courts?

Section 188 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been com- mitted at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Print Page

Supreme Court Judgment upholding sexual autonomy of married woman(Adultery Judgment)

 The contra view is that adultery is a marital wrong, which should have only civil consequences. A wrong punishable with criminal sanctions, must be a public wrong against society as a whole, and not merely an act committed against an individual victim.

To criminalize a certain conduct is to declare that it is a public wrong which would justify  public censure, and warrant the use of criminal sanction against such harm and wrong doing.

The autonomy of an individual to make his or her choices with respect to his/her sexuality in the most intimate spaces of life, should be protected from public censure through criminal sanction. The autonomy of the individual to take such decisions, which are purely personal, would be repugnant to any interference by the State to take action purportedly in the „best interest‟ of the individual.

Andrew Ashworth and Jeremy Horder in their commentary titled „Principles of Criminal Law‟59 have stated that the traditional starting point of criminalization is the „harm principle‟ the essence of which is that the State is justified in criminalizing a conduct which causes harm to others. The authors opine that the three elements for criminalization are: (i) harm, (ii) wrong doing, and (iii) public element, which are required to be 59 Oxford University Press, (7th Edn.) May 2013  proved before the State can classify a wrongful act as a criminal offence.

John Stuart Mill states that ―the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over the member of a civilized community against his will is The other important element is wrongfulness. Andrew Simester and Andreas von Hirsch opine that a necessary pre-requisite of criminalization is that the conduct amounts to a moral wrong.61 That even though sexual infidelity may be morally wrong conduct, this may not be a sufficient condition to criminalize the same.

17. In my view, criminal sanction may be justified where there is a public element in the wrong, such as offences against State security, and the like. These are public wrongs where the victim is not the individual, but the community as a whole.

60 Mill, John S., Chapter I: Introductory, On Liberty, Published London: Longman, Roberts, & Green Co. 1869, 4th Edn.

61 A P Simester and Andreas von Hirsch, Crimes, Harms, And Wrongs: On The Principles Of Criminalisation, Oxford: Hart Publishing (2011)  Adultery undoubtedly is a moral wrong qua the spouse and the family. The issue is whether there is a sufficient element of wrongfulness to society in general, in order to bring it within the ambit of criminal law?

The element of public censure, visiting the delinquent with penal consequences, and overriding individual rights, would be justified only when the society is directly impacted by such conduct. In fact, a much stronger justification is required where an offence is punishable with imprisonment.

The State must follow the minimalist approach in the criminalization of offences, keeping in view the respect for the autonomy of the individual to make his/her personal choices.

The right to live with dignity includes the right not to be subjected to public censure and punishment by the State except where absolutely necessary. In order to determine what conduct requires State interference through criminal sanction, the State must consider whether the civil remedy will serve the purpose. Where a  civil remedy for a wrongful act is sufficient, it may not warrant criminal sanction by the State.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the anomalies in Section 497, as enumerated in para 11 above, it is declared that :

(i) Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

(ii) Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.

(iii) The decisions in Sowmithri Vishnu (supra), V.

Rewathi (supra) and W. Kalyani (supra) hereby stand overruled.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Decided On: 27.09.2018

Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India (UOI)

Print Page