In a noteworthy decision, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed an FIR filed by a judicial officer against his in-laws, alleging criminal trespass and conspiracy. The judgment, delivered by Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar on November 18, 2024, criticized the misuse of criminal law in familial disputes and upheld the right of the in-laws to reside with the officer’s estranged wife.
Case Background
The petitioners, Chandrakant Gangadhar Patil (70), his wife Suraksha (60), and their son Vijaykumar (41), were implicated in FIR No. 119 of 2022 filed by Durgaprasad Deshpande, an ad-hoc district judge. The FIR accused the petitioners of unlawful entry into a flat jointly owned by Deshpande and his wife, Sarika, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Deshpande alleged that the petitioners trespassed into his property, obstructed his access, and instigated Sarika to file false cases against him to extract financial benefits. He claimed the accused were exploiting Sarika’s mental health for personal gain.
The Dispute
Deshpande and Sarika’s matrimonial discord has been long-standing, with over 23 civil and criminal cases between them. Sarika, living separately from Deshpande, invited her parents to reside with her in the disputed flat. The petitioners contended that their presence in the flat was lawful, as Sarika, a co-owner, had the right to allow them into the property.
The FIR invoked multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including:
- Section 109: Abetment of an offense
- Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
- Sections 451 and 452: House trespass and preparation for criminal intent
- Section 384: Extortion
Legal Analysis
The petitioners, represented by Advocate N.K. Tungar, argued that the FIR was baseless and a blatant abuse of legal machinery. They highlighted that:
- Sarika, as a co-owner of the flat, had the legal right to allow her parents to stay with her.
- The complainant’s allegations lacked evidence to support claims of criminal intent.
The prosecution, represented by APP A.V. Lavte and Advocate Vishal Kakade, defended the registration of the FIR, claiming that Deshpande’s allegations warranted legal action.
Court’s Observations
The court emphasized that the FIR lacked substance and criticized the parties for burdening the legal system with personal disputes. It noted:
“The chequered matrimonial dispute is taking a toll on the process of law. The machinery of the police and courts has been unnecessarily exerted by the parties.”
On the issue of trespass, the court observed:
“The allegations in the FIR or evidence collected during investigation nowhere suggest that the entry of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 into the house was with criminal intent. In fact, they were invited by Sarika and residing at her pleasure.”
Additionally, the court found no evidence supporting claims of abetment or conspiracy by the petitioners.
Judgment
The court quashed the FIR and the corresponding criminal proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 366 of 2023, pending before the 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded. It held that the continuation of the criminal case would constitute an abuse of the legal process, stating:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, no offense can be made out against the applicants. Criminal proceedings in such matters would be an abuse of the process of law.”
Representation
- For the Petitioners: Advocate N.K. Tungar
- For the State: APP A.V. Lavte
- For the Complainant: Advocate Vishal Kakade
