SC warns against filing random charge sheets

NEw DelhiThe tell must non pursue citizens when thither exists no sensible prospect of conviction, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday, warning that indiscriminate charge sheets and mechanically framed charges severely compromise the right to a fair process and choke the already stressed criminal justice system.A bench of justices N Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan said the police and trial courts must act as critical first-level filters, ensuring that only cases supported by strong suspicion and legally tenable evidence proceed to trial. Filing charge sheets without adequate basis, the court cautioned, forces judges, prosecutors and court staff to expend valuable time on cases that are almost certain to result in acquittal.“The tendency of filing charge sheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system,” said the bench, adding that weak prosecutions divert limited judicial resources away from more serious cases and contribute to the “massive case backlogs” facing courts across the country.While acknowledging that conviction or acquittal cannot be predicted at the stage of charge-framing, the bench highlighted a fundamental guarantee: “The State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process.”The remarks came as the court set aside criminal proceedings against a Kolkata resident accused of trespass, criminal intimidation and outraging the modesty of a woman under sections 341, 354C and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The man, son of one of the co-owners of the disputed Salt Lake property, had argued that the complaint was an attempt to settle scores in a pre-existing civil property dispute.“It is critical that where there is a pending civil dispute between parties, the police and criminal courts must be circumspect,” noted the bench, stressing that criminal law should not become a tool for coercion in civil conflicts.The FIR, filed by the complainant in March 2020, alleged that the accused restrained her from entering the property and clicked photographs and videos without consent, thereby intruding on her privacy and outraging her modesty. A charge sheet was filed in August 2020, but the complainant later declined to make a judicial statement, a fact the court said should have been a serious red flag during the charge-framing process.The bench noted that no material in the charge sheet established that the woman was a tenant, and statements on record indicated she was merely a prospective tenant. Further, a prior injunction order on the property had barred induction of any new tenant, undermining the claim that she had a right to enter.The Supreme Court held that allegations of voyeurism under Section 354C were unsustainable as the FIR did not claim that the complainant was captured while engaged in a “private act”, which is essential to constitute the offence. Similarly, the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 was unsupported by any mention of threatened injury, which was an essential ingredient.“All that the appellant-accused did was to enforce what he bona fide thought was his lawful right over the property in terms of the injunction order,” the court concluded.Allowing the appeal and discharging the accused, the bench held that at best, the complaint amounted to a civil dispute involving ingress, property rights or modification of interim orders.“In the present case, the police and the trial court should have been cognizant that as there was a pending civil dispute with regard to the property in question as well as a prior subsisting injunction order and the complainant had refused to make any judicial statement, strong suspicion founded on legally tenable material/evidence was absent,’ it held.