A bench of Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan upheld the Calcutta High Court’s earlier decision, observing that the essential elements of voyeurism—such as capturing a private act—were completely absent. The judges criticized the police and the trial court for misapplying criminal law to a matter that was “entirely civil in nature.”
According to case records, the complainant had visited a disputed property in Salt Lake on 18 March 2020, accompanied by workers. The accused, Tuhin Kumar Biswas, recorded a video of her entry into the premises. The woman later alleged that her privacy had been violated and claimed the act amounted to outraging her modesty.
The bench rejected this view, noting that entering a property in broad daylight could not be considered a private act. “Invoking Section 354C in these circumstances reflects a clear misunderstanding of the law,” the court observed, adding that criminal courts must act as filters to prevent weak or unwarranted prosecutions.
The judges also noted that despite the absence of evidence and the complainant’s refusal to record her statement, the police went on to file a charge sheet. Both the trial court and the Calcutta High Court declined to discharge the accused, forcing him to approach the Supreme Court.
Setting aside all charges, the apex court held that the criminal process had been misused in a family property dispute. The ruling reiterates that provisions intended for the protection of women must be applied strictly in accordance with the law, and not as tools in unrelated civil conflicts.
4.jpg)
