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 |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies established Section 227 jurisprudence; overrules the High Court’s refusal to discharge |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Penal Code) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage the court must sift the prosecution’s material to determine if a strong suspicion of guilt exists, without a full trial-level weighing of evidence. Here, the FIR and chargesheet disclosed no voyeurism (Section 354C) absent any private-act allegation; no criminal intimidation (Section 506) absent any defined threat; and no wrongful restraint (Section 341) as the complainant lacked any right to enter the property given a civil injunction and her status as only a prospective tenant. Consequently, strong suspicion on any count was missing and the appellant had to be discharged. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court reiterated that under Section 227 CrPC a judge must sift and weigh only the prosecution’s material to see if grave suspicion exists; it applied the tests from P. Vijayan, Prafulla Kumar Samal and subsequent cases. It stressed that absent any allegation of a “private act” there is no Section 354C offence, that criminal intimidation requires a clear threat, and wrongful restraint requires a legal right to proceed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A prospective tenant filed an FIR alleging that the appellant, co-owner’s son, restrained her (Section 341), clicked photos/videos without consent (Section 354C) and intimidated her (Section 506). A civil suit with an injunction ordering joint possession was pending. The complainant refused to make a judicial statement and no tenancy documents were produced. The trial court and High Court refused discharge before charge framing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and benches of the Supreme Court dealing with discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC |
| Overrules | High Court of Calcutta’s refusal to discharge the appellant despite lack of strong suspicion |
| Follows | Established Supreme Court precedents on discharge under Section 227 CrPC (P. Vijayan, Samal, M.E. Shivalingamurthy, etc.) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that at the discharge stage courts act as a filter, sifting only the prosecution’s own material to test for “strong suspicion,” without probing defence or weighing full evidence.
- Clarifies that Section 354C IPC (voyeurism) requires an allegation of watching or capturing a woman in a truly “private act” as defined; mere photography on a compound does not suffice.
- Emphasises that criminal intimidation (Section 506) demands clear threats to person, reputation or property; vague assertions of “intimidation” via photography do not qualify.
- Confirms that wrongful restraint (Section 341) cannot stand where the complainant had no legal right to enter the property—especially when a civil injunction and pending suit govern ingress and egress.
- Stresses the duty of police when filing chargesheets and of courts at framing stage to prevent clogging the system with cases lacking a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Section 227 Framework
- Quoted P. Vijayan and Samal: judge must sift prosecution material to see if grave suspicion exists; if only mere suspicion, discharge is appropriate.
- Recent affirmations in Ram Prakash Chadha and M.E. Shivalingamurthy.
-
Offence under Section 354C IPC
- Definition requires capturing a woman during a “private act” (undergarments exposed; using lavatory; sexual act not done in public).
- FIR and chargesheet contain no such allegation—no voyeurism.
-
Offence under Section 506 IPC
- Criminal intimidation demands threat of injury to person/reputation/property.
- FIR is silent on any words or actions amounting to threat beyond “intimidation” by photography.
-
Offence under Section 341 IPC
- Wrongful restraint needs obstruction of a person’s lawful right to proceed.
- Complainant was only a prospective tenant with no right to enter; civil injunction barred any third-party interest or alienation.
-
Civil Dispute and Injunction
- Pending Title Suit No. 20/2018 with injunction mandating joint possession and prohibiting third-party rights.
- Police and courts must be circumspect in such mixed civil–criminal scenarios to avoid misuse and judicial backlog.
-
Conclusion
Absent strong suspicion on any count, and given the civil injunction, the appellant must be discharged; High Court order set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Civil suit with subsisting injunction ordered joint possession; FIR lodged maliciously to dispossess.
- Complainant was only a prospective tenant; no tenancy documents in chargesheet.
- No material for Section 354C (no “private act”); no statements under Section 161 or 164 CrPC.
- Ingredients of Section 506 (threat) and Section 341 (lawful right to proceed) not made out; allegations false.
Respondent
- Complainant came to see the ground floor as prospective tenant; statements of co-owner support that.
- Prima facie material exists for Sections 341 and 506; framing of charge was appropriate.
- High Court declined discharge under Section 227; no error in refusing to interfere.
Factual Background
On 18–19 March 2020 a prospective tenant alleged that the appellant obstructed her entry (Section 341), clicked her photographs/videos without consent (Section 354C) and intimidated her (Section 506). A chargesheet was filed on 16 August 2020. The appellant moved to discharge under Section 227 CrPC; the trial court and the Calcutta High Court dismissed his application. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 227 CrPC: Jurisdiction to discharge if no sufficient ground to proceed; requires sifting prosecution material for “grave suspicion.”
- Section 354C IPC (Voyeurism): Defines “private act” and criminalizes watching or capturing images during such an act.
- Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation): Requires threat of injury to person/reputation/property with intent to cause alarm.
- Section 341 IPC (Wrongful Restraint): Obstruction of lawful right to proceed; exception for good faith obstruction of private way.
- Section 339 IPC: Defines wrongful restraint; exception applies where person believes lawful right to obstruct.
Procedural Innovations
- Emphasises the police’s duty at the chargesheet stage to assess evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction, especially amid pending civil disputes.
- Reiterates the trial court’s role under Section 227 as an initial filter against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions, guarding judicial resources.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions (overruled High Court’s order refusing discharge)