Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1989

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5146 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3002 of 2024)
Decided On : 02-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Discharge of accused – At the stage of discharge, strong suspicion suffices – However, strong suspicion must be founded on some material which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial.
(2) There can be no analysis at charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but fundamental principle is that State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises right to a fair process.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 354C and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 250] – Wrongful confinement, outraging modesty, voyeurism and criminal intimidation – Rejection of discharge application – At the stage of discharge, strong suspicion suffices – However, strong suspicion must be founded on some material which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial – There is no allegation in FIR and charge-sheet that complainant was watched or captured by Appellant-accused while she was engaging in a private act – Allegations in FIR and material on record did not disclose offence under Section 354C of IPC – Except for bald allegation that Appellant-accused intimidated complainant by clicking her photographs, FIR and charge-sheet are completely silent about manner in which complainant was threatened with any injury to her person or her property – Words uttered by complainant are not mentioned in FIR – Even if allegations in FIR are taken at face value, ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation are not attracted – On the date of alleged offence, complainant had no right to enter the property – Induction of complainant as tenant in the property would have been in violation of injunction passed by Trial Court – Allegations in FIR and material on record at best constitute a cause of action for filing suit for injunction and/or application seeking modification of interim order already in subsistence or application for relief of ingress and egress in pending suit – Criminal proceedings against Appellant-accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of IPC cannot be permitted to continue. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 354C and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 250] – Wrongful confinement, outraging modesty, voyeurism and criminal intimidation – Rejection of discharge application – Where there is a pending civil dispute between parties, Police and Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing charge-sheet and framing charges respectively – In a society governed by rule of law, decision to file charge-sheet should be based on Investigating Officer's determination of whether evidence collected provides reasonable prospect of conviction – Police at the stage of filing of charge-sheet and Criminal Court at stage of framing of charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to formal trial stage to maintain efficiency and integrity of judicial system – Tendency of filing charge-sheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs judicial system – It forces Judges, court staff, and Prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in acquittal – There can be no analysis at charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but fundamental principle is that State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises right to a fair process – Appellant-accused discharged from criminal case. (Paras 28, 29 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated 30th January 2024 passed by Calcutta High Court, whereby revision petition filed by Appellant-accused against order dismissing the discharge application filed by Appellant in FIR No.50/2020 dated 19th March 2020 lodged with police station Bidhannagar North, was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned Judgment and Order is set aside as well as Appellant-accused is discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020 (arising out of Bidhannagar North Police Station FIR No. 50 of 2020).
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Discharge of an accused at the initial stage of proceedings requires only a strong suspicion; however, this suspicion must be based on material that can be translated into evidence during trial. The court emphasized that the suspicion should not be purely conjectural (!) (!) .
The court clarified that there can be no detailed analysis at the charge framing stage regarding the likelihood of conviction or acquittal. The primary principle is that the State should not prosecute individuals without a reasonable prospect of conviction, to safeguard the right to a fair trial (!) (!) .
The case involved allegations of wrongful confinement, outraging modesty, voyeurism, and criminal intimidation. The court found that the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose an offence under the relevant provisions, as essential elements such as watching or capturing images during a private act were absent (!) (!) .
The allegations of criminal intimidation were not substantiated, as the FIR lacked details about threats or words uttered that could cause alarm or injury, and no supporting statements or evidence were produced (!) (!) .
The offence of wrongful restraint was not established because the material did not demonstrate that the complainant had a right to proceed into the property, especially since the complainant was not a confirmed tenant but only a prospective one, and the accused believed he was exercising a lawful right based on an injunction order (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of the judicial system acting as a filter, ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion proceed to trial, especially in the context of pending civil disputes and injunction orders. Filing charges without sufficient suspicion can clog the judicial system and undermine fairness (!) (!) .
The court noted that the civil dispute and the injunction order indicated that the accused was acting within what he believed to be his lawful rights, and the allegations did not substantiate criminal offences. Consequently, the proceedings against the accused should not continue (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment dismissing the discharge application was set aside, resulting in the discharge of the accused from the criminal case (!) .

In summary, the court emphasized the necessity of establishing a material basis for suspicion before proceeding with criminal charges, especially in cases involving civil disputes and injunctions, and ultimately discharged the accused due to lack of sufficient grounds to continue prosecution.

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30th January 2024 passed by the Calcutta High Court, whereby the revision petition filed by the Appellant-accused against the order dismissing the discharge application filed by the Appellant in FIR No.50/2020 dated 19th March 2020 lodged with police station Bidhannagar North, was dismissed.

ACTS

3. On 19th March 2020, the complainant-Ms. Mamta Agarwal, an alleged tenant of Mr. Amalendu Biswas, one of the co-owners of the property at CF-231, Sector I, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700064 (“the property”) filed a complaint/FIR under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). The complainant alleged that on 18th March 2020, when the complainant along with her friend and workmen tried to enter the property, the Appellant-accused intimidated them and restrained them from entering the property. The complainant further alleged that the Appellant-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.

4. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet dated 16th August 2020 was presented against the Appellant-accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C and 506 of IPC. It is stated in the chargesheet that the complainant expressed her unwillingness to make a judicial statement. The relevant portion of the chargesheet in question is reproduced hereinbelow:-

During investigation all follow-up actions were taken. Notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. was complied with by the accused but he didn’t surrender before Ld. Court. The complainant expressed her unwillingness to make judicial statement.

Discussed with IC, Bidhannagar North PS and considering all aspects, he opined to submit Charge Sheet in this case.

Hence, I do submit Charge sheet vide BDN(N) PS CS No.128/2020 Dated 16.08.2020 u/s 341/354C/506 IPC against accused Tuhin Kr. Biswas @ Bumba S/O Bimanlendu Biswas of CF-231, Sector-1, Salt Lake Kolkata-700 064, PS- BDN(N) to stand his trial in the open Court of law.

The witnesses, noted in Col. No.14, will prove the charge during trial. They may kindly be summoned. Kept the complainant informed about the result of investigation.”

5. Thereafter, the Appellant-accused, who is son of one of the co-owners of the property in question filed an application seeking discharge, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 29th August 2023. The revision petition against the order dated 29th August 2023 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant-accused stated that the two brothers (Mr. Bimalendu Biswas and Mr. Amalendu Biswas) are the joint owners of the property in question and one of the brothers, being Mr. Amalendu Biswas, had tried to dispossess the other brother without due process of law. He stated that said other brother, being father of the Appellant-accused, filed a civil suit being Title Suit No. 20 of 2018 with respect to the property in question against Mr. Amalendu Biswas. He pointed out that vide order dated 29th November 2018, the learned Civil Judge directed the parties to maintain joint possession of the propert