List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan in the case of Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2025) allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant-accused, holding that act of clicking a woman's pictures and making her videos on a mobile phone without her consent, when is not indulging in a "private act", would not attract an offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

What was the Background of Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2025) Case? 

• An FIR was filed on March 19, 2020 by complainant Ms. Mamta Agarwal under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of IPC against Tuhin Kumar Biswas. 
• The property in question (CF-231, Sector I, Salt Lake, Kolkata) was jointly owned by two brothers - Bimalendu Biswas (father of the appellant) and Amalendu Biswas. 
• A civil suit (Title Suit No. 20 of 2018) was pending regarding the property, wherein the Civil Court had passed an injunction order on November 29, 2018 directing both parties to maintain joint possession and restraining them from creating third-party interests. 
• The complainant alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she tried to enter the property with her friend and workmen, the appellant intimidated and restrained them, clicked her pictures and made videos without consent, thereby outraging her modesty. 
• A chargesheet dated August 16, 2020 was filed against the appellant, which notably mentioned that the complainant expressed her unwillingness to make a judicial statement. 
• The appellant, being the son of one of the co-owners, filed a discharge application which was dismissed by the Trial Court on August 29, 2023. 
• The High Court dismissed the revision petition on January 30, 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Section 354C defines voyeurism as watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a 'private act' where she would expect not to be observed. 
• The Court found no allegation that the complainant was engaging in any 'private act' when allegedly photographed or videographed. 
• The High Court itself had concluded that allegations did not disclose an offence under Section 354C but inexplicably failed to discharge the appellant on this count. 
• The Court held that mere clicking of pictures in a property dispute does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and discharged the appellant from all charges. The Court concluded that continuing criminal proceedings in this case would be an abuse of process, given the absence of legally tenable evidence supporting any of the three offences charged.

What is Voyeurism? 

Definition: 

Voyeurism consists of three key acts: 

• Watching a woman engaging in a private act. 
• Capturing the image of a woman engaging in a private act. 
• Disseminating such images. 
• All acts must occur in circumstances where the woman would reasonably expect not to be observed. 

Essential Ingredients: 

What Constitutes a "Private Act" (Explanation 1) 

• Act carried out in a place reasonably expected to provide privacy. 
• Victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear. 
• Victim is using a lavatory. 
• Victim is doing a sexual act not ordinarily done in public. 

Perpetrator's Conduct: 

• Direct watching or capturing by the perpetrator, OR. 
• Watching or capturing by another person at the behest of the perpetrator. 
• Dissemination of such images to third persons. 

Consent and Dissemination (Explanation 2) 

• Victim may consent to capture of images but not to dissemination. 
• If images are disseminated without consent for dissemination, it constitutes an offence. 
• Consent to capture ≠ consent to share. 

Punishment Structure: 

First Conviction 

• Imprisonment: Minimum 1 year, may extend to 3 years. 
• Fine: Mandatory. 
• Nature: Bailable. 

Second or Subsequent Conviction 

• Imprisonment: Minimum 3 years may extend to 7 years. 
• Fine: Mandatory. 
• Nature: Non-bailable. 

Procedural Classification (BNSS) 

• Cognizable offence: Police can arrest without warrant. 
• Bailable: For first conviction. 
• Non-bailable: For second or subsequent conviction. 
• Triable by: Court of Session. 

Legislative Evolution: 

• Earlier Law: Section 354C of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Current Law: Section 77 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
• Key Change: Substantive provisions largely retained with enhanced procedural clarity. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vishwa Bandhu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2025) dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023( BNSS) seeking to quash an FIR, noting that the chargesheet and cognizance order were not brought on record.

What was the Background of Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2025) Case? 

• The applicant (Vishwa Bandhu) approached the High Court to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. 
• The primary ground for the challenge was that a second FIR on the same set of facts constitutes an abuse of the process of law as per the Supreme Court's judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala. 
• The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application, arguing that at the investigation stage, the remedy lies in filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, not an application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). 
• The applicant sought quashing of the FIR without placing the chargesheet or cognizance order on record before the Court. 
• At the time of the hearing, no chargesheet had been filed in the case, meaning the applicant could not physically produce such documents.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Sinha relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) to establish a clear distinction between stages of judicial intervention. 
• The Court noted that the Supreme Court held FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken, but once cognizance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and the cognizance order, if duly pleaded. 
• The Court observed: "From perusal of the prayers so made in the present application, it is clear that the applicant has simply sought for quashing the FIR and he has not placed the chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken on the chargesheet by the competent Court." 
• Justice Sinha held: "In view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra), since the chargesheet and the cognizance has not been placed on record, FIR cannot be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 528 BNSS (old section 482 CrPC)." 
• The petition was dismissed as being non-maintainable for the reason that chargesheet and cognizance order were not placed on record. 
• The State relied on the 1989 Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of UP, which held that Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) applies only to judicial proceedings after cognizance is taken and not to police investigations.

What is Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)? 

• Section 528 of BNSS replaces the former Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, preserving the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice. 
• This provision does not confer new powers but merely recognizes the High Court's pre-existing inherent powers to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the Code. 
• Inherent powers under Section 528 cannot be invoked to quash police investigations following a cognizable FIR, interfere with statutory investigation rights, or question the reliability of FIR allegations. 
• Case law establishes that these powers can be exercised to quash proceedings where there is a legal bar, where allegations don't constitute an offence, or where evidence fails to support charges. 
• The Supreme Court cautions against entertaining Section 528 petitions if alternative remedies haven't been pursued and prohibits second petitions on grounds available when filing the first petition. 
• As a saving provision, Section 528 preserves the High Court's discretionary power to intervene in exceptional circumstances when ordinary remedies are inadequate for complete justice. 
• Exercise of powers under Section 528 requires judicial restraint, particularly in cases where investigations are at nascent stages. 
• When considering such petitions, courts must balance protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution against allowing legitimate investigation, especially for economic offences. 
• These powers can prevent abuse where criminal proceedings are initiated with mala fide intentions or ulterior motives stemming from private grudges. 
• Courts are generally more cautious about quashing proceedings in economic offence cases under Section 528, recognizing their distinct nature and wider impact on the financial system.