This major clarification came while the Court was hearing a criminal case arising out of a long property dispute<\/strong> in Salt Lake, Kolkata.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A bench of Justices NK Singh and Manmohan<\/strong> closed the criminal case against Tuhin Kumar Biswas, who had been accused only because he recorded a video of a woman while she was entering a disputed property. The Court said the police and the trial court were expected to act more responsibly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They should not file a chargesheet or frame charges for voyeurism without proper material. The bench observed that running cases forward \u201conly clogs the criminal justice system<\/strong>\u201d and wastes time that should be used for more serious matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case was linked to a family dispute between two brothers over a house in Salt Lake. Tuhin Biswas is the son of one of the co-owners. His father had already filed a civil suit in 2018, and on 29 November 2018<\/strong>, a civil court had given an injunction ordering both sides to maintain joint possession and preventing any third-party rights. This order was active when complainant Mamta Agarwal visited the property in March 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later, she filed an FIR on the instructions of the uncle of the accused. She alleged that he stopped her, intimidated her, and clicked her photos and videos without her consent. The police filed a chargesheet on 16 August 2020<\/strong> under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354C (voyeurism), and 506 (criminal intimidation), even though the complainant refused to give a judicial statement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After both the trial court and the Calcutta High Court<\/a> refused to discharge him, the accused approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court first explained the law on discharge. It stated that criminal courts must act as a filter and a case can only go to trial if the material placed by the prosecution creates a strong suspicion<\/strong> of guilt. A weak case should not continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench then analysed the FIR and chargesheet to check whether voyeurism was made out. It explained that voyeurism applies only when a woman is watched or photographed during a private act<\/strong>, like undressing, using a toilet, or doing a sexual act<\/strong>. In this case, there was no private act involved at all<\/strong>, and the Court found nothing in the FIR<\/a> to support a voyeurism charge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court pointed out that even the High Court had admitted that voyeurism was not made out, but still refused to discharge the accused. This was incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, the Court looked at the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC<\/strong>. It said there was no mention of any threat of injury to person, property, or reputation. No specific threatening words were recorded. This meant the basic requirement of criminal intimidation was missing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court then examined the allegation of wrongful restraint. The FIR showed that the complainant tried to enter the property, claiming she was a tenant. But the chargesheet contained no proof<\/strong> of tenancy. Even her own supporting witnesses gave no statements. Interestingly, the uncle (Amalendu Biswas) himself stated that the complainant had only come to \u201csee<\/strong>\u201d the property, which meant she was only a prospective tenant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said that bringing in a tenant would violate the existing injunction. Therefore, the accused acted under a bona fide belief<\/strong> that he had the right to stop entry into the property under the civil court\u2019s order. The Court observed that even if the allegations were taken at face value, the matter was purely civil in nature, and at most, required civil remedies like injunction applications\u2014not criminal prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench strongly criticised routine filing of criminal charges in such cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further said that in this case the police and the trial court ignored the fact that there was already a civil dispute and an injunction, and also that the complainant refused to give a judicial statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, no strong suspicion<\/strong> existed against the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the accused from all charges.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Used In This Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"Clicking](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Supreme-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Section \/ Law<\/strong><\/td> Meaning in Simple English<\/strong><\/td> Why It Was Mentioned Here<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court\u2019s Observation<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 341 IPC \u2013 Wrongful Restraint<\/strong><\/td> Stopping someone from going where they have a legal right to go.<\/td> The woman claimed the accused stopped her from entering the property.<\/td> She was not a tenant<\/strong>, only a prospective visitor. Under the injunction, the accused had a bona fide belief<\/strong> he had a right to stop entry. No offence made out.<\/td><\/tr> Section 354C IPC \u2013 Voyeurism<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Watching or recording a woman during a private act<\/strong> (undressing, bathroom use, sexual act).<\/td> She claimed he clicked photos\/videos without consent.<\/td> No private act involved. Accused only recorded her entering the property. \u201cAllegation\u2026 did not disclose any offence under Section 354C.\u201d<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Section 506 IPC \u2013 Criminal Intimidation<\/strong><\/td> Threatening someone with injury to body, property, reputation.<\/td> FIR vaguely accused him of \u201cintimidation\u201d.<\/td> No specific threat mentioned. FIR silent on words used. No statements recorded. Ingredients of Section 506 not satisfied<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Section 161 CrPC \u2013 Police Statements<\/strong><\/td> Police records witness statements here.<\/td> No supporting witnesses gave statements.<\/td> Absence of statements shows weak, unsubstantiated case<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Section 164 CrPC \u2013 Judicial Statement<\/strong><\/td> Complainant gives statement before a magistrate.<\/td> Woman refused to give this statement.<\/td> Indicates doubt<\/strong> and made the prosecution case weaker.<\/td><\/tr> Section 227 CrPC \u2013 Discharge<\/strong><\/td> Court checks if enough material exists to continue trial.<\/td> The accused sought discharge. Lower courts refused.<\/td> Supreme Court said no strong suspicion<\/strong>, so accused must be discharged. Courts should not act as \u201cpost offices\u201d.<\/td><\/tr> Civil Injunction Order (29 Nov 2018)<\/strong><\/td> Order said both brothers must maintain joint possession; no tenant\/third party can be inducted.<\/td> Complainant entering property violated the injunction.<\/td> Accused had lawful reason to prevent entry. Makes criminal allegations civil in nature<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Principle of Strong Suspicion (Case Law)<\/strong><\/td> Only when material creates strong suspicion, a case should go to trial.<\/td> Court applied this rule.<\/td> Said weak cases \u201cclog the judicial system<\/strong>\u201d.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n