In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has discharged a man accused of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), invoking not just modern legal principles but also ancient Indian literature to underline the antiquated and misogynistic nature of the law.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while delivering the verdict on April 17, 2025, referenced the Mahabharat to highlight the patriarchal concept of treating women as the property of their husbands. She remarked:
“The woman being considered as the property of the husband and its devastating consequences are well documented in Mahabharat wherein Draupadi was put on stake in a game of gamble by none other than her own husband Yudhishtra where other four brothers were the silent spectators and Draupadi had no voice to protest for her dignity.”
The case arose from a complaint filed by Inderjeet Singh, who accused his wife, Seema Satsangi, of having an extramarital affair with Ashok Kumar Singh, the petitioner. Singh alleged that his wife and the petitioner had stayed together as a couple in Lucknow in 2010 and engaged in sexual activity without his consent. On confronting his wife, she allegedly responded that he could leave if he had issues with her relationship.
The complaint under Section 497 IPC was initially dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.), who found insufficient evidence. However, this order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), and Ashok Kumar Singh was summoned. Singh challenged the ASJ’s order through a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the summons.
Legal Background and Arguments
The petitioner argued that the ASJ had relied solely on the oral testimony of the complainant without corroborating evidence. Merely staying overnight in the same hotel room was not proof of sexual intercourse. The counsel cited the Joseph Shine v. Union of India judgment, where Section 497 IPC was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2018 for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
“Despite having such example to demonstrate the consequence of absurdity of treating of a woman as a chattel, the misogynistic mindset of our Society understood this only when the Apex Court declared Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional in the case of Joseph Shine (supra),” the Court noted.
Justice Krishna extensively referenced the reasoning from the Joseph Shine case:
“Thinking of adultery from the point of criminality would be a retrograde step… A law punishing adultery as a crime cannot make distinction between these two types of marriages. It is a law which is bound to fall within the sphere of manifest arbitrariness.”
The Court observed that under Section 497 IPC, only the man engaging with another man’s wife could be punished—not the woman nor her husband if he gave consent, exposing the law’s inherent patriarchal and arbitrary nature.
Justice Krishna also drew attention to the ruling in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. v. S.N. Thakur, where it was held that the Supreme Court's declarations of law apply retrospectively, even to pending cases.
The Delhi High Court supported this view by citing rulings from multiple High Courts, including Telangana, Punjab & Haryana, and Jharkhand, where similar proceedings under Section 497 IPC were quashed post the Joseph Shine ruling.
“Therefore, the Complaint Case No.153/1 filed by Respondent No.2 on the allegations of Section 497 IPC against the Petitioner, is therefore, liable to be quashed,” Justice Krishna stated.
On the factual front, the Court emphasized that the primary allegation—that the petitioner stayed with the complainant’s wife at Hotel Piccadilly in Lucknow—was not sufficient to presume sexual intercourse. No concrete oral or documentary evidence was available to prove adultery.
“There can be no presumption of they having indulged in a sexual intercourse… for which there is no oral or documentary evidence, but is based on a presumption which cannot be considered prima facie for summoning of the Petitioner,” the Court ruled.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the ASJ’s summoning order dated April 28, 2018, quashed the complaint filed by Inderjeet Singh, and discharged Ashok Kumar Singh.
Title: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH v. State & Anr.
