In a hearing that moved at a steady but thoughtful pace, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside criminal proceedings against Salt Lake resident Tuhin Kumar Biswas, ruling that the police had filed a chargesheet “without any material that could even be translated into evidence.” The bench, led by Justice Manmohan, was visibly unimpressed with how the case had been pushed into the criminal system despite an ongoing civil dispute over the same property.
Background
The matter started in March 2020, when Mamta Agarwal, a woman claiming to be a tenant of one of the co-owners of the property at CF-231, Sector I, Salt Lake, lodged an FIR alleging that Biswas had wrongfully restrained her, taken her photos without consent, and intimidated her. The police later filed a chargesheet under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354C (voyeurism) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
But the story wasn’t that straightforward. The property was already under a civil injunction order directing both co-owners-Biswas’ father and his uncle-to maintain joint possession and not induct any third party. When the bench heard this, it quickly became clear that the FIR was entangled in the family property dispute. The complainant, the Court noted, wasn’t even a tenant. She had apparently come only to “see the property,” as per the uncle’s own statement.
To make things more curious, she never recorded a judicial statement and even refused to give one under Section 164 CrPC.
Court’s Observations
The bench took its time explaining why the case should never have reached the criminal trial stage. Justice Manmohan remarked during the hearing, “At the stage of discharge, there must be strong suspicion based on material that can actually become evidence. That minimum threshold is completely missing here.”
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle
The Court examined each allegation separately:
On voyeurism (Section 354C):
The bench said the FIR did not describe any “private act” as required under the law. Clicking someone’s photo in an open area, without more, does not constitute voyeurism. The High Court itself had earlier said the complaint didn’t disclose this offence, yet still refused discharge. The Supreme Court called this inconsistent.
On criminal intimidation (Section 506):
The FIR contained no mention of any threatening words, no description of fear or injury, and no supporting witness statements. The Court bluntly observed that a “bald allegation” cannot sustain a criminal charge.
On wrongful restraint (Section 341):
The complainant had no right to enter the property, the Court noted, especially since her induction as a tenant would have violated an existing injunction. In that situation, Biswas’ objection was not unlawful restraint but a “bonafide enforcement of a civil order.”
The bench added a broader remark that sounded almost like a caution to police forces across India: “The tendency of filing chargesheets where no strong suspicion exists clogs the judicial system and diverts resources from serious cases.”
Decision
Concluding that the FIR and chargesheet lacked any legally sustainable material, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order, and formally discharged Tuhin Kumar Biswas from all criminal proceedings arising from the 2020 FIR. With that, the Court closed the matter at the order itself.
Case Title: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. State of West Bengal
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5146 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3002/2024)
Decision Date: 02 December 2025
