No ‘Private Act’, No Voyeurism — Section 354C IPC Not Attracted: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case

“The State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction — doing so compromises the right to a fair process,” In a significant judgment reinforcing the principle that criminal law cannot be weaponised to settle property disputes, the Supreme Court discharged the appellant from all criminal charges under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing a complete lack of prima facie evidence and the civil nature of the underlying dispute.

The Court categorically held that strong suspicion is a precondition for proceeding to trial under Section 227 CrPC, and that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet disclosed ingredients of the alleged offences.

“Absent a Strong Suspicion, a Trial Cannot Be Permitted to Continue”: Court Applies Stringent Standard Under Section 227 CrPC

While allowing the appeal challenging dismissal of the appellant’s discharge application, a Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh clarified the legal threshold required to frame charges under Section 227 CrPC.

The Court emphasised that a strong suspicion must be based on legally admissible material, not conjecture or civil grievances. Referring to a catena of precedents, including P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Bench observed:

“If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused… The Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution.”

Civil Dispute Turned Criminal — FIR Filed After Attempt to Enforce Possession Over Jointly Owned Property

The matter arose from an FIR dated March 19, 2020, registered by one Mamta Agarwal, who claimed to be a tenant of one Mr. Amalendu Biswas, a co-owner of a disputed Salt Lake property in Kolkata. She alleged that when she entered the premises with her friend and workers, the appellant Tuhin Kumar Biswas (son of the other co-owner, Mr. Bimalendu Biswas) wrongfully restrained her, clicked her photographs without consent, and intimidated her.

However, the facts told a different story. The appellant’s father had already filed a civil suit against Mr. Amalendu Biswas in 2018, and by order dated November 29, 2018, the Civil Court had directed that no third-party interest be created in the property and that the parties maintain joint possession.

“Both parties are hereby restrained from disturbing the joint possession of the other in the suit property and from alienating the suit property or creating third-party interest in the suit property,” read the injunction order relied upon by the appellant.

The FIR, the Court observed, was filed amid this ongoing civil tussle, and the complainant’s claim of tenancy found no support in the investigation records.

No ‘Private Act’, No Voyeurism — Section 354C IPC Not Attracted

The Supreme Court squarely rejected the invocation of Section 354C IPC (Voyeurism), noting that the FIR did not allege any act of privacy protected under the statute.

“There is no allegation in the FIR or chargesheet that the complainant was watched or captured while engaging in a ‘private act’… Clicking pictures in a public space, without more, does not attract Section 354C,” the Court ruled.

The Court also noted that the High Court, despite recognising that Section 354C was not made out, erroneously refused to discharge the accused under that charge.

Section 506 IPC Requires Specific Threat — Bald Allegation of Intimidation Not Enough

As to the allegation of criminal intimidation, the Court held that mere assertion of “intimidation” was insufficient without specific words, threats, or acts that could cause alarm.

“The FIR and chargesheet are completely silent about the manner in which the complainant was threatened with any injury… the words, if any, uttered by the accused are not even mentioned,” the Court observed.

The complainant had refused to record her judicial statement, and no statements under Section 161 CrPC from her friend or workers were produced. The absence of corroborative material, the Court held, was fatal.

Wrongful Restraint Charge Falls Flat — No Right to Enter, No Offence Under Section 341 IPC

Referring to Section 339 IPC, the Court underlined that wrongful restraint requires that the complainant have a lawful right to proceed in a particular direction, which was absent in this case.

The Bench found that Mamta Agarwal was only a prospective tenant, not someone with an established right of entry:

“The material on record indicates that on the date of the alleged offence, the complainant had no right to enter the property… Induction of the complainant as tenant would have been in violation of the injunction order,” the Court held.

Moreover, the appellant’s act of preventing entry, in his bonafide belief of enforcing his legal right, was protected by the exception under Section 339 IPC.

“Prosecution Must Not Proceed Without Reasonable Prospect of Conviction”: Court Slams Mechanical Framing of Charges

In a cautionary note that will resonate across trial courts and police agencies, the Supreme Court warned against mechanical filing of chargesheets and framing of charges where no strong suspicion exists.

“The tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system… It diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs.”

The Court called for circumspection in criminal prosecution when civil disputes are pending, adding:

“The Police and the Trial Court should have been cognizant that there was a prior subsisting injunction order and the complainant had refused to make any judicial statement.”

Discharge Granted, Proceedings Quashed

Summing up, the Supreme Court held:

“Criminal proceedings against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of IPC cannot be permitted to continue… The present appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside.”

Accordingly, the appellant was discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 50 of 2020, registered at Bidhannagar North Police Station, West Bengal.

This judgment will serve as a guidepost on the limits of criminal process, particularly in property disputes and where allegations are not supported by evidence. By reiterating that criminal prosecution must rest on a reasonable prospect of conviction, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the constitutional promise of a fair trial and just process.

The ruling is a reminder that criminal law is not to be used as a tool of private vengeance or civil leverage, and that courts must act as vigilant gatekeepers, filtering out weak cases before they burden the already strained judicial machinery.

Date of Decision: December 2, 2025