TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....064 ("the property") filed a complaint/FIR under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). The complainant alleged that on 18th March 2020, when the complainant along with her friend and workmen tried to enter the property, the Appellant-accused intimidated them and restrained them from entering the property. The complainant further alleged that the Appellant-accused intimidated the complainant by clicking her pictures and making her videos on his mobile without her consent and by doing so, he intruded upon her privacy and outraged her modesty. 4. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet dated 16th August 2020 was presented against the Appellant-accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354C and 506 of IPC. It is stated in the chargesheet that the complainant expressed her unwillingness to make a judicial statement. The relevant portion of the chargesheet in question is reproduced hereinbelow:- "17. Brief facts of case: Bidhannagar North P.S. Case No:50/2020 Dated 19.03.2020 U/S 341/354C/506 IPC has been started on the basis of written Complaint of one Mamta Agarwal of I/B, Kustia Road, Kolkata - 700039. The fact in brief is that on 19.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the said injunction was prevalent on the date of the incident which led to filing of the FIR. The relevant portion of the injunction order dated 29th November 2018 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "....Both the parties should maintain a joint possession in the suit property. Both parties are hereby restrained from disturbing the joint possession of the other in the suit property and from alienating the suit property or creating 3rd party interest in the suit property till disposal of the suit..." 7. He alleged that the FIR in question had been registered at the behest of Mr. Amalendu Biswas, who attempted to dispossess the Appellant-accused and his father from the property in violation of the injunction order passed by the Trial Court. 8. He contended that on the date of the incident, the complainant had entered the property with anti-social elements in a bid to dispossess the Appellant-accused's father. He pointed out that the complainant-Ms. Mamta Agarwal is a habitual offender and has been charged with offences under Sections 302 & 307 of IPC in one case, and offences under Sections 323, 341, 506(II) & 114 of IPC in another case. He emphasised that the complainant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said to be a matter falling within the domain of exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of consideration of a prayer for discharge. 15. On careful scrutiny of the order impugned, I find no reason to interfere with the order whereby Ld. Magistrate refused to discharge the accused and fixed a date for framing of charge and hearing of the petition. 16. Thus, the revision application being no. CRR 3443 of 2023 is hereby dismissed. Ld. Trial Court is directed to frame charge, keeping an eye on the observation made by this Court after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties." REASONING ABSENT A STRONG SUSPICION, AN ACCUSED CAN BE DISCHARGED 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that before proceeding with the matter, it is essential to outline the legal principles to be kept in mind by the Court while deciding an application seeking discharge. 15. This Court has recently in Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UP (2024) 10 SCC 651, cited with approval earlier decisions of this Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri) 609], SCC p. 9, para 10) "10. ... (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi)." (emphasis supplied) 17. 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. 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law, this Court will have to assess as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Appellant-accused for the offences alleged in the FIR. FIR AND CHARGESHEET DO NOT DISCLOSE AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 354C IPC 19. Section 354C of IPC defines voyeurism as an act of a man watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Consequently, in the present case, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation are not attracted. OFFENCE OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT IS NOT MADE OUT 23. Section 341 of IPC provides punishment for the offence of wrongful restraint, which has been defined in Section 339 of IPC as under: "339. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section." 24. The ingredients essential to constitute an offence of wrongful restraint are that there should be an obstruction which prevents a person from proceeding in any direction in which the person has a right to proceed. The exception to the offence of wrongful restraint provides that no offence of wrongful restraint is committed if the person alleged of obstruction, in good faith, believes that he has a lawful right to ob....