The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeal filed by Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba against the State of West Bengal, setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment and discharging the Appellant-accused from the offences alleged under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court’s decision was based on the finding that the First Information Report (FIR) and chargesheet did not disclose sufficient grounds or a strong suspicion for proceeding with the trial for the alleged offences, especially considering the pre-existing civil dispute and court injunction over the property.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles and Findings
The Court, after outlining the legal principles for deciding a discharge application, assessed the material on record against the ingredients of the alleged offenses.
1. Offence under Section 354C IPC (Voyeurism) Not Disclosed
The Supreme Court found that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose an offence under Section 354C of IPC.
- Definition of Voyeurism: Voyeurism involves watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging in a ‘private act’ where she has an expectation of not being observed.
- Lack of ‘Private Act’ Allegation: There was no allegation in the FIR or chargesheet that the complainant was captured while engaging in a ‘private act’.
- The Calcutta High Court, in its impugned judgment, had also concluded that the allegation of clicking pictures and making video did not constitute an offence under Section 354C of IPC.
2. Ingredients of Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC) Not Attracted
The Court held that the ingredients for criminal intimidation were not met.
- Requirement: An offence under Section 506 IPC requires a threat of injury to a person, reputation, or property with intent to cause alarm.
- Insufficient Material: The FIR and chargesheet were “completely silent” about the manner in which the complainant was threatened, and the threatening words, if any, uttered by the Appellant-accused were not mentioned.
- The complainant and her associates never made a statement to substantiate her allegations.
3. Offence of Wrongful Restraint (Section 341 IPC) Not Made Out
The offence of wrongful restraint was found not to be established due to the existence of a prior civil dispute and injunction.
- Wrongful Restraint Definition (Section 339 IPC): Obstruction of a person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed.
- Exception: The offence is not committed if the person causing obstruction “in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct”.
- Complainant’s Right to Enter: The complainant’s right to enter the property stemmed from being a purported tenant of a co-owner, Mr. Amalendu Biswas.
- Lack of Evidence: No material was placed on record with the chargesheet to indicate that the complainant was a tenant; a co-owner’s statement suggested she was only a prospective tenant.
- Violation of Injunction: The Appellant-accused’s action was to enforce what he “bonafidely thought was his lawful right” over the property in terms of an existing Trial Court injunction order that required the co-owners to maintain joint possession and not create any third-party interest.
- Therefore, the Court concluded the complainant had no right to enter the property on the date of the incident, and the Appellant’s actions fell under the exception to wrongful restraint.
🏛️ Observations on Judicial System Efficiency
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Police and Criminal Courts must act as “initial filters” to maintain the efficiency of the judicial system.
- Strong Suspicion Required: Chargesheets and charge framing should only proceed where there is a “strong suspicion” founded on legally tenable material and evidence.
- Clogging the System: The “tendency of filing chargesheets” in matters without a strong suspicion clogs the judicial system, diverting limited judicial resources from serious cases and contributing to backlogs.
- Fair Process: The State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as this compromises the right to a fair process.
In this case, the Police and Trial Court should have recognized the pending civil dispute, the subsisting injunction, and the complainant’s refusal to make a judicial statement, indicating the absence of a strong suspicion.
The Appeal was allowed, and the Appellant-accused, Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba, was discharged
Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal, decided on 02-12-2025