The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s orders refusing to discharge the accused in the criminal case alleging wrongful restraint, voyeurism and criminal intimidation, holding that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose any offence under Sections 341, 354C or 506 IPC. The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the allegations stemmed from an underlying property dispute and did not create the strong suspicion required to put an accused on trial. The court cautioned that “where there is a pending civil dispute between the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges respectively.”
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in March 2020 alleging that the accused had restrained and intimidated the complainant and recorded her without consent when she attempted to enter the disputed property. However, she refused to give a judicial statement. Thereafter, the accused filed an application seeking discharge, but the Trial Court dismissed it in August 2023. His revision petition challenging that order was also rejected by the Calcutta High Court, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Section 354C (voyeurism) was not attracted because the complainant was not engaged in a “private act”, in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed, when the accused allegedly recorded her. It also found that the criminal intimidation under Section 506 was not made out. It noted that no specific allegation of threats or the manner in which the complainant was threatened was made in the chargesheet or FIR, except for the bald allegation that the Appellant-accused intimidated the complainant by clicking her photographs. Further, the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 was not made out because the complainant lacked any right to enter the property, while the accused acted under a bona fide belief arising from the subsisting injunction.
The bench also issued a broader caution to police and criminal courts, observing that filing chargesheets and framing charges without strong suspicion clogs the judicial system, especially when civil disputes are pending. The Court stressed that prosecutions must not proceed without a reasonable prospect of conviction, given the constitutional commitment to fair process.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the accused be discharged from the criminal case.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Somnath Ghoshal, Adv. Mr. Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Towseef Ahmad Dar, AOR Mr. Anupam Bar, Adv. Ms. Zinat Sultana, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
