Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Manmohan discharged an accused from criminal proceedings on Tuesday (December 2), expressing dismay at the practice of filing charge sheets and framing charges in matters with low prospects of conviction. The case stemmed from a 2020 FIR in West Bengal alleging that the accused restrained and intimidated a woman and recorded her photographs and video without consent when she attempted to access a jointly owned property for tenancy purposes. The complainant was a prospective tenant seeking entry into a property already governed by a civil injunction. The Court held that the available materials did not disclose criminal offences and indicated an attempt to give the dispute a criminal colour despite ongoing civil proceedings, discharging the accused and cautioning that filing charge sheets without strong suspicion diverts judicial resources and burdens the system, adding to case backlogs.

On 19 March 2020, a woman claiming to be a tenant of one co-owner of a residential property in Salt Lake, Kolkata, lodged an FIR alleging that, the previous day, when she entered the premises with a friend and workmen, the accused, son of the other co-owner, stopped them from entering, argued with them, and took her photographs and videos on his mobile phone without consent. She alleged wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and invasion of privacy, leading to registration of the case under Sections 341, 354C and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read: Arbitration and Conciliation Act | Once Arbitrator Is Appointed, Arbitral Process Must Proceed Unhindered; No Review Or Appeal Lies Against Section 11 Order Appointing Arbitrator: Supreme Court

After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on 16 August 2020 under the same provisions, noting, inter alia, that notice under Section 41A CrPC had been issued and that the complainant had declined to give a judicial statement.

The accused applied for discharge before the trial court, relying on a prior civil suit between his father and the other co-owner and an injunction order directing joint possession and restraining creation of third-party rights in the property. He contended that the complainant was only a prospective tenant, that no material such as seized photographs or supporting witness statements under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC had been produced, and that the dispute arose from an attempt to create third-party rights despite the civil injunction.

The Court observed: “The tendency of filing charge sheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs.”

It further observed 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. In a society governed by rule of law, the decision to file a chargesheet should be based on the Investigating Officer's determination of whether the evidence collected provides a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Police at the stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.”

The Court stated: “Undoubtedly, there can be no analysis at the charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process.”

Applying these principles, the Court recorded: “In the present case, the Police and the Trial Court should have been cognizant that as there was a pending civil dispute with regard to the property in question as well as a prior subsisting injunction order and the complainant had refused to make any judicial statement, strong suspicion founded on legally tenable material/evidence was absent.”

Also Read: Appellate Tribunal Under PMLA Has Inherent Power To Remand Matters To Adjudicating Authority: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

It further stated: “Consequently, at the stage of discharge, a strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be found on some material which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial.” and concluded: “Consequently, this Court is of the view that criminal proceedings against the Appellant-accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of IPC cannot be permitted to continue.”

The Court directed: “Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present Appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Order is set aside as well as the Appellant-accused is discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020 (arising out of Bidhannagar North Police Station FIR No. 50 of 2020).”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Somnath Ghoshal, Adv. (argued by) Anupama Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Towseef Ahmad Dar, AOR Ms. Zinat Sultana, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR(argued by) Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv.

Case Title: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba versus The State of West Bengal
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1373
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5146 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3002/2024)
Bench: Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Justice Manmohan