Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005146-005146 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 7199/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing discharge jurisprudence; sets aside impugned order |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC a “strong suspicion” must be supported by material capable of translating into evidence at trial; mere allegations without judicial statements or proof of ingredients of Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC fail to disclose an offence; a pending civil dispute and a subsisting injunction that negates the complainant’s right to enter the property further undermines the criminal charges; police and courts must act as gatekeepers to prevent prosecutions lacking reasonable prospects of conviction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A prospective tenant filed FIR alleging obstruction (Section 341), voyeurism (Section 354C) and intimidation (Section 506). Chargesheet filed noting the complainant’s refusal to testify. A prior civil injunction barred third-party interests in the property. The accused sought discharge at trial; both the Magistrate and the High Court refused. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; future benches of the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The absence of any material proving tenancy or a private act negates offences under Sections 341 and 354C IPC.
- Mere clicking of photographs without evidence of private exposure does not attract voyeurism under Section 354C IPC.
- A “strong suspicion” threshold at discharge requires prima facie evidence—not mere allegations or a bare FIR.
- A pending civil injunction affecting property rights can undermine criminal charges based on obstruction.
- Police and trial courts must act as initial filters to prevent prosecutions lacking reasonable prospects of conviction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 227 CrPC demands “strong suspicion” supported by material that could stand at trial (Stree Atyachar; P. Vijayan; Prafulla Kumar Samal).
- No “private act” was alleged or evidenced, defeating Section 354C IPC.
- Section 506 IPC requires clear threats; the FIR lacked details of any criminal intimidation.
- Section 341 IPC’s wrongful restraint fails because the complainant had no legal right to enter—no tenancy proof and a subsisting civil injunction.
- The overlap with a pending civil dispute indicates the matter was suited for civil remedies, not criminal prosecution.
- Emphasising systemic efficiency, the Court warned against lodging chargesheets without a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused):
- The dispute was civil; FIR was a tool to dispossess in breach of an injunction.
- No evidence of tenancy or right to enter; no proof of voyeurism or threats.
- Complainant refused judicial statement, underscoring the allegations’ falsity.
Respondent (State):
- Complainant was a prospective tenant; co-owner’s statement supported her entry.
- Prima facie material existed for wrongful restraint and intimidation.
- High Court correctly limited discharge jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC.
Factual Background
- On 19 March 2020 an FIR was lodged under Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC alleging the accused obstructed, intimidated and recorded a prospective tenant without consent.
- Investigation led to a chargesheet dated 16 August 2020; the complainant declined to give a judicial statement.
- A prior civil injunction (Title Suit 20/2018) directed joint possession and barred third-party rights in the property.
- The accused applied for discharge at trial and in revision; both courts refused.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 227 CrPC: discharge if no “sufficient grounds” for proceeding, tested by strong suspicion from prosecution material.
- Section 354C IPC: defines voyeurism; requires capturing a woman’s “private act” where privacy is expected.
- Section 506 IPC: punishes threats intended to cause alarm to person or reputation.
- Section 341 IPC (and Section 339 IPC): wrongful restraint requires obstructing a person’s lawful right to proceed; exception for bona fide obstruction of a private way.
Procedural Innovations
- Directs police to assess “reasonable prospect of conviction” before filing chargesheets in matters overlapping with civil disputes.
- Mandates courts at charge framing to act as gatekeepers, filtering out cases lacking strong suspicion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed