Case Note & Summary
The revision application was filed by the complainant-husband challenging the orders of the courts below discharging the accused (his wife and the alleged paramour) from the offence under Section 497 IPC. The complainant married respondent No.2 in 1994 and a daughter was born in 1999. In 1999, the wife left the matrimonial home and did not return. In February 2010, the complainant allegedly saw his wife in the company of respondent No.3, which led to the filing of a complaint. The trial court discharged the accused, and the appellate court affirmed the discharge. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no error in the concurrent findings. The court observed that the complainant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the offence of adultery, which requires proof of sexual intercourse with another person. Mere suspicion or allegations without corroboration are insufficient. The revision was dismissed, and the discharge was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Adultery - Section 497 IPC - Discharge - The complainant alleged that his wife was living in adultery with the co-accused, but the courts below found no prima facie case as the evidence was insufficient to prove the offence. The High Court upheld the discharge, holding that mere suspicion or allegations without corroborative evidence cannot sustain a charge of adultery. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Standard of Proof - The court reiterated that at the stage of discharge, the court must consider whether a prima facie case exists. If the evidence does not reasonably support the charge, the accused is entitled to be discharged. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in discharging the accused under Section 497 IPC when the complainant alleged that his wife was living in adultery with the co-accused.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the orders of the courts below discharging the accused under Section 497 IPC.
Law Points
- Adultery
- Section 497 IPC
- Discharge
- Prima Facie Case
- Standard of Proof
- Matrimonial Discord
Case Details
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed by Subordinate Court) No. 425 of 2020
HCLS Committee, Neeraj Soni, Mehul A Surati, Ms Shruti Pathak
Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai Makwana
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against concurrent orders of discharge in a case of alleged adultery under Section 497 IPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.465 of 2019 and the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.911 of 2015.
Filing Reason
The applicant alleged that his wife (respondent No.2) was living in adultery with respondent No.3, and the courts below erroneously discharged the accused.
Previous Decisions
The trial court discharged the accused on 27.05.2019, and the appellate court affirmed the discharge on 19.11.2019.
Issues
Whether the courts below erred in discharging the accused under Section 497 IPC?
Whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial for adultery?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that both the courts below committed an error in discharging the accused. The revisionist was married to respondent No.2 according to Hindu rites on 13.12.1994 and a daughter was born in 1999. In 1999, respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home and did not return. In February 2010, the complainant saw respondent No.2 in the company of respondent No.3, which came as a shock to him.
The respondents argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove adultery and the discharge was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of discharge, the court must consider whether a prima facie case exists. Mere suspicion or allegations without corroborative evidence cannot sustain a charge of adultery under Section 497 IPC. The complainant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the offence, and therefore the accused were rightly discharged.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that both the courts below have committed an error in discharging the accused.
It is submitted that the revisionist was married to respondent No.2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 13.12.1994 and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born in the year 1999.
It is further submitted that due to matrimonial discord between the parties, in February 2010, the complainant allegedly saw respondent No.2 in the company of one Maheshbhai Paljibhai Chhashiya, who is respondent No.3 herein, which came as a shock to him.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad) discharged the accused in Criminal Case No.911 of 2015 on 27.05.2019. The complainant appealed to the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.465 of 2019, which was dismissed on 19.11.2019. The complainant then filed the present revision application before the High Court, which was dismissed on 16.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 497
