Supreme Court Discharges Accused; Holds FIR Allegations Do Not Constitute Offences Under Sections 341, 354C or 506 IPC Amid Civil Property Dispute

Case Name: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 INSC 1373
Date of Judgment/Order: 02 December 2025
Bench: Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.; Manmohan, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose the basic ingredients of offences under Sections 341, 354C, or 506 IPC. It concluded that the complainant was not a tenant and had no legal right to enter the property; therefore, preventing her entry could not constitute wrongful restraint. Allegations of voyeurism under Section 354C were unsustainable because no “private act” was involved. The charge of criminal intimidation was also untenable as the FIR lacked any specific threat or utterance. Considering the subsisting civil injunction requiring joint possession of the disputed property and the complainant’s refusal to record a judicial statement, the Court held that criminal prosecution could not be allowed to continue. It emphasized that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil property disputes and that strong suspicion based on legally tenable material is mandatory for framing charges.

Summary: The complainant lodged an FIR alleging that the appellant restrained her entry, clicked her photos, and intimidated her. The appellant argued that there was a long-standing civil property dispute between two brothers (one of whom was his father) and that a civil court injunction required joint possession, prohibiting creation of new tenancy rights making the complainant’s entry unlawful. He contended that the complainant, a prospective tenant, had no right to enter the property, and that no evidence supported allegations of voyeurism or intimidation. The State argued that prima facie material existed to proceed. Examining the statutory ingredients, the Supreme Court found that Section 354C requires capturing a woman engaged in a private act, which was entirely absent. Section 506 requires a specific threat, also absent from both FIR and charge sheet. Section 341 requires obstruction of a lawful right of way; however, the complainant had no tenancy and thus no legal right to enter. The Court criticized routine filing of charge sheets in civil disputes, noting that both police and courts must filter cases lacking strong suspicion to prevent clogging the criminal system.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and discharged the appellant from G.R. Case No. 223/2020 (arising from FIR No. 50/2020). It held that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process, as neither FIR nor charge sheet disclosed essential elements of offences under Sections 341, 354C, or 506 IPC. The Court reiterated the duty of investigative agencies and trial courts to avoid prosecuting cases without reasonable prospects of conviction. All pending applications were disposed of.