Karnataka High Court quashes trespass case against father who posed as garbage van guard to visit child

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case alleging house trespass and criminal intimidation initiated by a woman against her ex-husband for attempting to visit their eight-year-old daughter by posing as a guard of a garbage van..Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the man had a right in law by a court order to visit his daughter and that his former wife had filed the case for trivial reasons. "The husband had valid visitation right on the day that he wanted to visit the daughter. Therefore, he had a right in law by an order of the competent Court, to visit the daughter," the Court observed in its order dated December 20..The Court was hearing a plea by the father to quash proceedings initiated against him by his ex-wife under Sections 448 (house trespass), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).By way of background, the couple had split after a divorce by mutual consent, following which the mother was given custody of their daughter and the father was given a right to visit the child every Saturday.However, on a certain Saturday last year, the mother rescheduled the father's visit through an email, which was acknowledged by the father. However, the woman said that the man tried to visit their daughter nevertheless on the said day. She alleged that the father first tried entering the apartment complex by sending a request through the MyGate app. After he was denied permission, the father was alleged to have got onto a garbage van and pretended to be a guard to enter the apartment complex.The woman further claimed that he proceeded to barge into the flat without warning, thereby allegedly traumatising the daughter who locked herself inside a bathroom for two hours. After the woman filed a criminal case against her estranged former husband over this alleged incident, he (petitioner) moved a plea before the High Court for relief. .Advocate R Pallava, appearing for the father, contended that he had visitation rights on the day of the incident. Although he acknowledged that the petitioner was aware of the rescheduling, he asserted that the petitioner did not agree to the change.As a result, he claimed that the petitioner was compelled to forcefully enter the apartment complex. He argued that registering the crime, in this case, amounted to an abuse of the legal process..On the other hand, advocate KP Yashodha, for the mother, contended that the petitioner's visit without notice traumatised the child. Therefore, she argued that it was a case of trespass, intimidation as well as an insult to provoke a breach of peace.Further, she contended that the case against the petitioner could be decided after a trial sought the dismissal of the petition before the High Court. .The Court noted that, as per the couple's divorce decree, it was agreed that the husband would have the right to visit his daughter from 3 to 5 PM every Saturday, either at the wife's residence or at a neutral place.It further observed that the police, without even looking into the issue between the parties, registered the crime fifteen days after the alleged incident.The Court highlighted that the petitioner's actions were triggered by his anxiety to meet his daughter, since he may have had to wait another week to meet his child if his visit were rescheduled. "This is the anxiety of the father to meet the daughter. This is dubbed by the wife to be a criminal trespass into the house with a criminal intent to intimidate the daughter," the Court remarked. .The Court added that it was incomprehensible how exactly the petitioner had intimidated his daughter and concluded that allowing further investigation would amount to an abuse of the legal process."Where from the husband has criminally intimated the daughter is again ununderstandable ... If any further investigation is permitted to continue, it would become, on the face of it, an abuse of the process of law and misuse of the provisions of law by the wife against the husband to settle her scores," it observed.Therefore, the Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 (saving of inherent powers of High Court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), quashed the proceedings against the petitioner..[Read Order]