Supreme Court: While considering this appeal whereby the accused challenged the dismissal of revision petition against the dismissal of his discharge application by Calcutta High Court, the Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan*, JJ., emphasised that where there is a pending civil dispute between the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges respectively. The Court stated that, “In a society governed by rule of law, the decision to file a chargesheet should be based on the Investigating Officer’s determination of whether the evidence collected provides a reasonable prospect of conviction”. The Police at the stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.
Background:
The complainant who was an alleged tenant of one of the co-owners of a property in Salt Lake, Kolkata filed a complaint/FIR under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) alleging that when the complainant along with her friend and workmen tried to enter the property, the accused intimidated them and restrained them from entering the property. The complainant further alleged that the accused intimidated the complainant by clicking her pictures and making her videos on his mobile without her consent and by doing so, he intruded upon her privacy and outraged her modesty.
Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was presented against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC. It was stated in the chargesheet that the complainant expressed her unwillingness to make a judicial statement.
Thereafter, the accused, who is son of one of the co-owners of the Salt Lake property, filed an application seeking discharge, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The revision petition against the Trial Court order was dismissed by the Single Judge vide the impugned judgment.
Counsel for the accused argued that there was an ongoing property dispute in the accused person’s family wherein the Civil Judge had directed the parties to maintain joint possession of the property as well as not to alienate the property and/or not to create any third-party interest in the property. It was argued that this injunction was prevalent on the date of the incident which led to filing of the FIR.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State stated that the complainant was only a prospective tenant and that there was sufficient material on record which made out a prima facie case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 of IPC.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the case, the Court noted that at the stage of discharge, a strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be found on some material which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial.
The Court further pointed out that Section 354-C IPC defines voyeurism as an act of a man watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging in a ‘private act’ in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed. Perusing the FIR and chargesheet on record for the present case, the Court was unable to conclude that the documents disclosed an offence under Section 354C of the IPC since there is no allegation in the FIR and chargesheet that the complainant was watched or captured by the accused while she was engaging in a ‘private act’.
The Court further pointed out that in order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of IPC, it must be shown that the person charged, threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm. Except for the bald allegation that the accused intimidated the complainant by clicking her photographs, the FIR and chargesheet were completely silent about the manner in which the complainant was threatened with any injury to her person or her property. The words, if any, uttered by the complainant are not mentioned in the FIR. The complainant or her associates never made a statement to substantiate her allegations.
The Court stated that the ingredients essential to constitute an offence of wrongful restraint are that there should be an obstruction which prevents a person from proceeding in any direction in which the person has a right to proceed. In the present case, the perusal of the FIR revealed that the alleged offences were committed when the complainant attempted to enter the property. The right of the complainant to enter the property stems from the virtue of being a purported tenant. However, no material had been placed on record along with the chargesheet which indicated that the complainant was a tenant in the property at any point of time. Furthermore, the complainant did not even give a statement in pursuance to her complaint. On the contrary, the co-owner of the Salt Lake property in his statement had stated that the complainant had come to see the property, meaning thereby that the complainant was not a tenant in the property but only a prospective tenant when the FIR was registered.
Therefore, the Court opined that criminal proceedings against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C, 506 IPC could not be permitted to continue.
In its concluding remarks, the Court pointed out that the tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs. Undoubtedly, there can be no analysis at the charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process.
The Court opined that in the present case, the Police and the Trial Court should have been cognizant that as there was a pending civil dispute with regard to the property in question as well as a prior subsisting injunction order and the complainant had refused to make any judicial statement, strong suspicion founded on legally tenable material/evidence was absent.
[Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5146 OF 2025, decided on 2-12-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Somnath Ghoshal, Adv. Mr. Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Towseef Ahmad Dar, AOR Mr. Anupam Bar, Adv. Ms. Zinat Sultana, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
