The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that the allegations of criminal trespass and intimidation were unfounded and constituted an abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

(M. Nagaprasanna, J.)

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.142 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 448 of the IPC. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the complainant, wife of the accused. For the sake of convenience the petitioner and the complainant will be hereinafter referred to as husband and wife respectively.

2. The facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner and the complainant get married and their relationship turns sour. On turning sour, proceedings come to be initiated before the concerned Family Court at Delhi and the two dissolved their marriage by mutual consent and a decree of divorce is granted on such mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the competent Court at Delhi. The term of compromise for divorce by mutual consent was that the parties would agree with the right of the husband to visit the daughter on every Saturday from 3 P.M. to 5 P.M. either at the residence of the wife or at a neutral place like the activity zone, or mall inter alia. Based upon the said compromise the two part-ways on 21.09.2020 and the custody of the daughter was with the wife. The petitioner alleges that the wife had intermittently breached the undertaking of visitation as available to the petitioner in terms of the compromise.

3. A particular incident happens on 19.08.2022. The wife communicates a mail to the husband rescheduling the visitation to 27.08.2022. The petitioner confirms of having received the communication as having noted. But, despite rescheduling, the petitioner enters the wife's building on 20.08.2022 and despite being denied permission three times on the mygate app, he tries to get through other modes to meet his daughter. At that point in time the wife was not at home and the petitioner attempts to meet the daughter. Such attempt to meet the daughter forcefully led the complainant to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police for offences punishable as afore-quoted. It becomes a crime in Crime No.142 of 2022. After registration of crime, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition and this Court has interdicted further investigation in the aforesaid crime. The crime is registered on 07.09.2022 alleging the incident that happened on 20.08.2022.

4. Heard Sri R.Pallava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.Rosa Paramel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner had visitation rights. Visitation was set to happen on 20.08.2022. Re-scheduling was done by the wife. No doubt, the husband has noted the rescheduling but has not acceded to. In the regular visitation hours, the petitioner wanted to visit the daughter but he was not let in. Therefore, he had to forcibly get in, not into the house but to the apartment complex and interact with the daughter. The wife gets to know the same and registers the crime. The allegation is that the daughter went into trauma as the father suddenly barged into the house and therefore, the crime is registered for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC. He would submit that this is a classic case of an abuse of the process of law.

6. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the wife would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that despite rescheduling of visitation, the husband visits the daughter without any notice. Therefore, the child, of 8 years went into trauma, locked herself in the bathroom for two hours. The act of the husband amounts to criminal trespass under Section 448 of the IPC. Since he intimidated the daughter, it amounts to criminal intimidation under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. She would contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. She w