Summary
The Supreme Court discharged the appellant of offences under Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC arising from a dispute over entry into a co-owned property governed by a civil court's joint-possession injunction. Taking the FIR and chargesheet at face value, there was no allegation of a 'private act' for voyeurism, no specified threat for criminal intimidation, and no right of the complainant to enter for wrongful restraint, so no strong suspicion existed to justify framing charges.
Issues
- What test governs discharge of an accused at the stage of framing charge.
- Whether photographing and filming the complainant without consent, as alleged, disclosed an offence of voyeurism under Section 354C IPC.
- Whether the material disclosed the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
- Whether wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC was made out where the complainant, a prospective tenant of one co-owner, had no shown right to enter property subject to a joint-possession injunction.
Provisions considered
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on Ram Prakash Chadha, P. Vijayan, Prafulla Kumar Samal and M.E. Shivalingamurthy, the Court held that a judge considering discharge must sift the prosecution material, need not act as a post office, and may discharge where only suspicion and not grave or strong suspicion arises; a strong suspicion must rest on material that can become evidence at trial. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 354C, Indian Penal Code, 1860Voyeurism requires watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a 'private act' as defined in Explanation 1. The FIR and chargesheet contained no allegation that the complainant was watched or filmed while engaged in such an act, as the High Court itself had found. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860Criminal intimidation requires a threat of injury to person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm. Apart from a bald assertion that taking photographs was intimidation, the FIR and chargesheet did not state any threat or words used, and no supporting statement was recorded. (¶ 22)
- Sections 339 and 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860Wrongful restraint requires obstruction of a person from proceeding where that person has a right to proceed; the Exception covers good-faith belief in a lawful right to obstruct a private way. The complainant was at most a prospective tenant with no shown right to enter, and the appellant was acting on a bona fide belief in his rights under the injunction. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- At the stage of discharge a strong suspicion suffices to frame a charge, but that suspicion must be founded on material capable of being translated into evidence at trial; where the material gives rise only to suspicion and not grave suspicion, the accused may be discharged. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Clicking pictures and recording videos of the complainant, without any allegation that she was engaged in a 'private act' within Explanation 1 to Section 354C IPC, does not disclose the offence of voyeurism. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The offence of criminal intimidation is not made out where the FIR and chargesheet do not state the manner in which, or the words by which, the complainant was threatened with injury, and neither the complainant nor her associates gave any statement supporting the allegation. (¶ 22)
- To establish wrongful restraint it must be shown that the person obstructed had a right to proceed in that direction and that the person obstructing had no lawful right to obstruct. A prospective tenant of one co-owner, whose induction would itself have breached a subsisting joint-possession injunction, had no right to enter, and the appellant was enforcing what he bona fide believed to be his lawful right. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The allegations at best gave rise to civil remedies such as a suit for injunction, an application to modify the interim order, or a request for ingress and egress in the pending suit, and the criminal proceedings could not continue. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Where a civil dispute is pending, the police in filing a chargesheet and the criminal court in framing charges must act as initial filters, allowing only cases with a strong suspicion founded on legally tenable material to proceed; the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, and needless chargesheets clog the courts. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; appellant discharged in the criminal case arising from FIR No. 50 of 2020, Bidhannagar North Police Station.