In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage, courts must sift evidence to determine if a “strong suspicion” exists. It clarified that an offence under Section 354C IPC requires capturing a “private act,” which was absent. The Court further ruled that wrongful restraint is not made out if the accused bona fide believes in a lawful right to obstruct.
Facts Of The Case:
On March 19, 2020, a complaint/FIR was lodged by Ms. Mamta Agarwal against the appellant, Tuhin Kumar Biswas. The complainant alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she, along with her friend and workmen, attempted to enter a property in Salt Lake, Kolkata, the appellant intimidated them and restrained them from entering. It was further alleged that the appellant clicked her photographs and made videos on his mobile phone without her consent, thereby intruding upon her privacy and outraging her modesty. The FIR was registered under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the IPC.The appellant was the son of one of the two brothers who were joint owners of the property in question. A civil suit, Title Suit No. 20 of 2018, was pending between the two co-owner brothers regarding the property. An injunction order dated November 29, 2018, was in force, directing both parties to maintain joint possession and restraining them from creating any third-party interest. The complainant was alleged to be a tenant of the other co-owner, Mr. Amalendu Biswas. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. However, the complainant expressed her unwillingness to make a judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The appellant filed a discharge application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and subsequently by the Calcutta High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The case originated from FIR No. 50/2020 registered on March 19, 2020, at Bidhannagar North Police Station against the appellant for offences under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on August 16, 2020. The appellant filed a discharge application before the Trial Court, which was dismissed on August 29, 2023. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred a criminal revision petition being CRR No. 3443 of 2023 before the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition on January 30, 2024, affirming the Trial Court’s order. Although the High Court observed that the allegations in the written complaint did not disclose any offence under Section 354C IPC, it nonetheless refused to discharge the appellant and directed the Trial Court to frame charges while keeping its observation in mind. Challenging this judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3002/2024. The Supreme Court granted leave on December 2, 2025, and treated the petition as a criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 5146 of 2025, ultimately allowing the appeal and discharging the appellant from all charges.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Power Used in Any Part of an Integrated Process Disqualifies Exemption from Excise Duty
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several significant observations while allowing the appeal. The Court observed that at the stage of discharge, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material which can be translated into evidence at the trial. It emphasized that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charges at the instance of the prosecution, but has to exercise judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out. Regarding Section 354C IPC, the Court observed that voyeurism requires watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging in a “private act” where she would reasonably expect privacy, and the FIR lacked any such allegation. The Court further observed that for criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, mere bald allegations are insufficient without specifying the threatening words uttered. Concerning wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, the Court observed that the exception to the offence applies when a person bonafidely believes they have a lawful right to obstruct. The Court observed that the complainant had no established right to enter the property as no tenancy documents were produced and she was only a prospective tenant. Most significantly, the Court observed that where there is a pending civil dispute with a subsisting injunction order, police and criminal courts must be circumspect in filing chargesheets and framing charges. The Court observed that filing chargesheets without strong suspicion clogs the judicial system and diverts resources from serious cases, emphasizing that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, after analyzing the factual matrix and legal principles, allowed the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 IPC. It was observed that no material was placed on record to establish that the complainant was a tenant in the property, and her unwillingness to make a judicial statement further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the appellant had acted in good faith to enforce what he bonafidely believed was his lawful right over the property based on the subsisting injunction order passed by the civil court. Consequently, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the appellant could not be permitted to continue as there was no strong suspicion founded on legally tenable material to proceed with the trial. Accordingly, the appellant was discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020 arising out of Bidhannagar North Police Station FIR No. 50 of 2020, bringing an end to the criminal prosecution against him.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 INSC 1373 Criminal Appeal No.: 5146 of 2025 Date of Judgment: December 02, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Manmohan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here