Supreme Court of India on Discharge in FIR: Property Dispute Context.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant from criminal proceedings under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 IPC, arising from FIR No. 50/2020. The Court held that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose offences under these sections. In particular, Section 354C IPC (voyeurism) was not made out as there was no allegation of a ‘private act,’ Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) was not attracted due to lack of specific threats, and Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) was not made out since the complainant had no lawful right to enter the property in question. The Court emphasized that filing chargesheets without strong suspicion, especially in ongoing civil disputes, clogs the judicial system.

Background:

1. FIR lodged on 19 March 2020 by Ms. Mamta Agarwal, alleging she was restrained from entering CF-231, Salt Lake, Kolkata by the appellant, who allegedly clicked her photographs and videos without consent.
2. The appellant filed a discharge application, dismissed by the Trial Court on 29 August 2023, and revision petition dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on 30 January 2024.
3. Appellant argued that:
4. FIR was motivated by a civil property dispute between his father and Amalendu Biswas.
5. Complainant was a prospective tenant, not an actual tenant.
6. Allegations under Sections 341, 354C, 506 IPC were false or unsupported.

Court’s Observations:

1. Discharge Principles:
2. At discharge stage, Court must see if there is strong suspicion.
3. Evidence is accepted at face value; defence not considered.
4. Filing of charges without strong suspicion clogs the judicial system.
5. Section 354C IPC (Voyeurism):
6. Requires capturing a woman during a private act.
7. FIR did not allege any private act, and no evidence produced.
8. Ingredients of the offence not made out.
9. Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation):
10. Requires threats of injury to person, reputation, or property.
11. FIR only mentioned taking photographs; no threats described.
12. Ingredients of the offence not made out.
13. Section 341 IPC (Wrongful Restraint):
14. Requires obstruction of a person who has a right to proceed.
15. Complainant had no legal right to enter property.
16. Appellant acted within his lawful right under prior injunction.
17. Police & Courts Responsibility:
18. In pending civil disputes, police and courts must ensure strong suspicion before filing charges or framing charges.
19. Filing charges without strong suspicion wastes judicial resources and undermines fair process.

Conclusion:

1. Appeal allowed.
2. Impugned judgment of Calcutta High Court set aside.
3. Appellant discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020 (arising out of FIR No. 50/2020, Bidhannagar North Police Station).

Judges:

1. Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
2. Manmohan, J.

Decision Date: 02 December 2025