Supreme Court Clears Man of Voyeurism Charge in Salt Lake Property Dispute

The Supreme Court has held that taking photos or recording videos of a woman without her consent, when she is not engaged in a private act, does not amount to voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code. The ruling came in the case Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal, where a man was accused of voyeurism for filming a woman as she entered a disputed property.

A Bench of Justices NK Singh and Manmohan discharged the accused and criticised the police as well as the trial court for invoking the offence of voyeurism without any reasonable basis. The judges observed that criminal cases must proceed only when there is strong suspicion that an offence has been committed, as pushing weak cases into trial unnecessarily burdens the justice system.

Background of the dispute

The matter arose from a long-standing property dispute between two brothers over a house in Salt Lake, Kolkata. In 2018, a civil court directed both sides to maintain joint possession and barred them from creating third-party rights. This order was still valid when the complainant, Mamta Agarwal, visited the property in March 2020 as a prospective tenant.

Following this, an FIR was filed at the instance of the accused’s uncle. The complaint alleged wrongful restraint, intimidation, and recording of photos and videos without permission. A chargesheet was later filed under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354C (voyeurism) and 506 (criminal intimidation), even though the complainant refused to give a judicial statement.

When both the trial court and the Calcutta High Court declined to discharge the accused, he approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s reasoning

The Court first clarified the legal standard for discharge: the prosecution’s material must create a strong suspicion that the accused may have committed the offence. Courts act as a filter at this stage to stop weak or unfounded cases from going to trial.

The Bench then analysed the allegations under Section 354C IPC. It explained that voyeurism applies only when a woman is watched or photographed during a private act—such as undressing, bathing, or performing a sexual act. The Court found that the FIR did not allege any such private act, and therefore the charge of voyeurism could not stand. It also noted that even the High Court had acknowledged this, yet still refused to discharge the accused.

Criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint

On the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, the Court noted that the FIR did not mention any threat of injury to the complainant’s person, property or reputation—an essential ingredient of the offence.

Regarding wrongful restraint, the Court pointed out that the complainant was not shown to be a tenant, and the only material available suggested that she had come merely to “see” the property. Allowing a tenant to enter would have violated the civil court’s injunction. Hence, the accused’s act of preventing entry was based on a bona fide belief that he was protecting a lawful right.

The Court emphasised that the allegations stemmed from a family property dispute and did not justify criminal prosecution. Such issues, it said, should be addressed through civil proceedings like applications in the ongoing suit.

Criticism of routine chargesheets

The Bench strongly criticised the tendency of filing chargesheets even when no strong suspicion is made out. It said this practice clogs courts, drains resources and forces judicial time to be spent on cases that are unlikely to result in conviction. This undermines the right to a fair process and delays trials in serious cases.

Final order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the accused from all charges.
The appellant was represented by advocates Somnath Ghoshal, Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Towseef Ahmad Dar, Anupam Bar and Zinat Sultana. The State was represented by advocates Prashant Alai and Kunal Mimani.