The criminal justice system is premised on a delicate balance: protecting society from crime while fiercely guarding the personal liberties of individuals. This balance collapses if prosecutions are launched mechanically, without evaluating whether the evidence collected offers any real possibility of securing a conviction. Recognising this foundational principle, the Supreme Court in Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal (2025 INSC 1373) delivered a landmark ruling which reaffirms that both the police and criminal courts are duty-bound to act as frontline filters, ensuring that cases with no reasonable prospect of conviction are not pushed into trial mechanically.
This judgment does not merely settle a dispute involving private parties—it articulates an institutional responsibility that goes to the heart of India’s criminal jurisprudence. Its implications extend to investigation practices, judicial workload, individual rights, and the structural health of India’s justice system.
Background of the Case
The factual matrix illustrates a common scenario in Indian litigation—civil disputes being given a criminal colour.
The appellant, Tuhin Kumar Biswas, was embroiled in a property dispute between two brothers (his father and uncle). An injunction order already directed both sides to maintain joint possession and not induct third parties.
On 19 March 2020, a woman—claimed to be a tenant—lodged an FIR alleging:
- wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC)
- voyeurism (Section 354C IPC)
- criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC)
According to her, the accused blocked her entry into the property and clicked her photographs without consent. However, during investigation:
- she refused to give a judicial statement,
- no evidence of tenancy was produced,
- no photographs or videos were seized, and
- the co-owner himself stated she was merely a prospective tenant.
Despite these glaring deficiencies, the police filed a chargesheet, and the Magistrate refused discharge. The High Court upheld this refusal.
The matter reached the Supreme Court, which conducted a detailed analysis of:
- what constitutes “strong suspicion” for framing charges,
- how Section 227 CrPC should be applied,
- and most importantly, what institutional responsibility police and courts bear in preventing misuse of the criminal process.
Legal Principles Governing Discharge: Not Every Allegation Merits a Trial
The Supreme Court began by restating long-standing jurisprudence on Section 227 CrPC, citing P. Vijayan, Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad, and Prafulla Kumar Samal. The distilled principles include:
- Two views possible → suspicion only, not grave suspicion → discharge.
- The Judge is not a post office of the prosecution.
- Materials must generate a strong suspicion, not mere conjecture.
- Defence evidence cannot be considered at this stage, but the court must look for basic infirmities in the prosecution case.
- Even if prosecution facts are accepted as true, if they cannot lead to conviction, the accused must not be made to stand trial.
These principles form the bedrock for assessing when a case deserves to move forward.
Applying the Law to the Facts: Why the Case Collapsed
1. Alleged Voyeurism Under Section 354C IPC
Section 354C criminalises capturing a woman engaged in a private act, defined to include:
- exposure of genitals, posterior, or breasts,
- use of a lavatory, or
- engagement in a sexual act.
The Court found no allegation whatsoever that the complainant was performing a private act or was in circumstances reasonably expecting privacy. The High Court had itself noted that voyeurism was not made out, yet inexplicably refused discharge on this count.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that no offence under Section 354C was even alleged.
2. Criminal Intimidation Under Section 506 IPC
To constitute criminal intimidation, the accused must:
- intentionally threaten injury,
- to person, property, or reputation,
- with the intention to cause alarm.
The FIR contained only a bald assertion of intimidation without:
- quoting any threatening words,
- describing any threat of injury,
- or establishing alarm.
No supporting witness statements existed. The complainant refused to substantiate her own allegation. On these facts, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 506 were not attracted at all.
3. Wrongful Restraint Under Section 341 IPC
The Court emphasised that:
- the complainant was not a tenant,
- she had no legal right to enter the property, and
- her induction as tenant would have violated the injunction.
Meanwhile, the accused, who was lawfully in joint possession, was enforcing his bona fide belief based on a subsisting civil court order. The exception to Section 339 IPC directly applies where a person obstructs access under a good-faith belief of lawful right.
Therefore, no offence of wrongful restraint was made out.
The Larger Message: Police and Courts Must Act as Filters
The judgment’s forceful message comes through in paragraphs 28 and 29, where the Supreme Court exposes systemic problems in the filing of chargesheets and framing of charges. It states:
1. Police must not file chargesheets where evidence does not show a reasonable prospect of conviction
Mechanical filing of chargesheets—especially in cases arising out of civil disputes—clogs the system and results in unjustified prosecution.
2. Courts must not frame charges unless a strong suspicion exists
Charges should not be framed merely because an FIR exists or a chargesheet is filed. Courts must evaluate whether the evidence—if unrebutted—could lead to a conviction.
3. Judicial time must not be wasted on doomed prosecutions
The Court warns that trials based on weak cases drain:
- judges’ time,
- prosecutorial resources,
- court staff effort.
Meanwhile, serious cases suffer due to the backlog.
4. The State violates fair-process rights by prosecuting without reasonable cause.
The Court emphasises that criminal prosecution itself is a coercive process, and subjecting citizens to it unjustifiably offends fair-trial principles.
This makes the ruling a significant reaffirmation of Article 21 protections and abuse-of-process jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that criminal prosecution is a serious state action that cannot proceed without a solid evidentiary foundation. Police must avoid filing chargesheets where the material does not indicate a realistic chance of conviction, and courts must refuse to frame charges unless a strong, legally sustainable suspicion exists.
By cautioning against converting civil disputes into criminal trials and urging institutional vigilance, the Court reaffirms the values of fairness, judicial economy, and personal liberty. The judgment stands as a clear directive: only cases with credible prosecutorial merit should enter the criminal trial process.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams