Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Anupam Singh Tomar v. State by Kothanur Police & Anr., has held that in situations of non-compliance with the visitation rights, a father attempting to visit daughter does not amount to a House Trespass.

What was the Background of Anupam Singh Tomar v. State by Kothanur Police & Anr. Case?

• The petitioner and the complainant got married, and their relationship turned sour.
  • The two dissolved their marriage by mutual consent.
• 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.
• The custody of the daughter was with the wife.
• The wife communicates a mail to the husband rescheduling the visitation to 27th August 2022. The petitioner confirms of having received the communication as having noted.
• But, despite rescheduling, the petitioner enters the wife’s building on 20th August 2022 and despite being denied permission three times on my gate app, he tries to get through other modes to meet his daughter.
• The crime is registered for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court.
• Allowing the petition, the court quashed all criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that Section 448 of the IPC deals with punishment for house trespass, the Court held that whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with an intention to commit an offence is said to be committing criminal trespass and that in the present scenario, the ingredients of the offence cannot be applied.
• The Court further held that the husband had a valid visitation right on the day that he wanted to visit the daughter, by an order of the competent Court.

What is Section 448 of IPC?

• This Section of IPC deals with the punishment for house-trespass. It states that whoever commits house-tres­pass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• The offence of house trespass has been defined under section 442 of the IPC. This section states that whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass.