TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Discharge Granted: Supreme Court Finds No Prima Facie Case for Voyeurism, Criminal Intimidation, or Wrongful Restraint Due to Lack of Evidence and Pending Civil Dispute.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1373
Decision Date: 02-12-2025
List of Laws
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code; Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code
Case Brief
- Facts: The complainant, Mamta Agarwal, alleged that Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba, the appellant, restrained and intimidated her when she tried to enter a property as a prospective tenant. She claimed he clicked her pictures and made videos without her consent, intruding on her privacy and outraging her modesty. A chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant filed a discharge application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The revision petition against this order was also dismissed by the Calcutta High Court. The appellant argued that the FIR was registered at the behest of a co-owner of the property, Mr. Amalendu Biswas, due to a property dispute and a subsisting injunction order.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Supreme Court of India via a Criminal Appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's revision petition against the Trial Court's order dismissing his discharge application.
- Issue: Did the FIR and chargesheet disclose offences under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the IPC, warranting the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant? Specifically, did the allegations constitute voyeurism under Section 354C or criminal intimidation under Section 506, and was there sufficient evidence of wrongful restraint under Section 341?
- Holding: No, the Supreme Court held that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose offences under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the IPC. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order, and discharged the appellant.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the allegations did not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C as there was no allegation that the complainant was watched or captured while engaging in a 'private act'. Regarding criminal intimidation under Section 506, the FIR and chargesheet were silent on the manner in which the complainant was threatened. As for wrongful restraint under Section 341, the complainant's right to enter the property as a tenant was not established, and the material on record indicated she was only a prospective tenant. The Court emphasized that the police and criminal courts must be circumspect in filing chargesheets and framing charges, especially when a civil dispute is pending. The Court noted the tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. The Court found that the appellant was merely enforcing what he believed to be his lawful right over the property in terms of the injunction order passed by the Trial Court.