Bombay High Court quashes Judicial Officer's FIR against in-laws

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench recently quashed a first information report (FIR) lodged by a judicial officer against his in-laws for allegedly trespassing into his house and obstructing his entry [Chandrakant Gangadhar Patil and Ors v State of Maharashtra].

A Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar observed that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and the allegations did not meet the ingredients necessary for the offences alleged.

“From the plain reading of the FIR and allegations therein, we do not find that ingredients to make out a case for the aforesaid offences are present in this case,” the Court said.

The FIR was lodged by Durgaprasad Deshpande, currently serving as Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge at Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.

He was serving as an ad-hoc District Judge when he lodged the FIR against his parents-in-law Chandrakant Patil and Suraksha Patil and their son Vijaykumar.

Deshpande alleged that when he attempted to visit his wife and children at their residence in Nanded on April 10, 2022, his in-laws conspired against him and obstructed him.

Deshpande further contended that they prevented his wife from opening the door to let him inside.

He further alleged that they created obstacles in both his personal and professional life including hindering the transfer of his flat.

The in-laws (petitioners) then approached the High Court to quash the FIR.

They argued that the FIR was baseless and an abuse of the legal process.

They contended that Deshpande had a history of mistreating his wife, who suffers from schizophrenia, and that the allegations were fabricated to evict her from their shared home.

The petitioners maintained they had been falsely implicated.

The prosecution asserted that the FIR was justified, claiming the petitioners had indeed trespassed and obstructed the judicial officer’s entry.

The Court noted that the matter involved a complex matrimonial dispute, with 23 criminal and civil cases pending between Deshpande and his wife.

“Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the chequered matrimonial dispute is taking toll of process of law. It is difficult to find out who is at fault; but, fact remains that the machinery of Police and Courts has been exerted by the parties,” the Court said.

After considering the arguments, the Court concluded that the evidence did not support the claims made in the FIR.

The bench held that the charges did not meet the necessary legal criteria for the offences under Sections 109 (abetment), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 447 (criminal trespass), 451 (house trespass), 452 (house trespass with intent to hurt), and 384 (extortion) of the Indian Penal Code.

Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding in such matters would be an abuse of process of law, the Court said while quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Nanded.

Advocate NK Tungar appeared for the in-laws.

Advocate AB Kadethankar appeared for Bombay High Court.

Additional Public Prosecutor AV Lavte and advocate Vishal A Kakade appeared for the State.

[Read Order]