Oh boy oh boy, I'm here to roll up with my English lit degree very excitedly because I so rarely get to discuss literary theory!
So, as far as literary circles are concerned, the answer is a resounding "NO." You cannot read a book incorrectly. BUT they would also say that if you cannot explain your reading with some kind of clear logic as to why, then your critical reading has no particular academic merit. ie "that's just your opinion, bro"
So for example, one popular "wrong" reading of Lord of the Rings is that it's an allegory for WWI and II, where a group of disparate allies band together to overcome this fascist force that's sweeping the world trying to put it under a single ruler, and even after winning, everyone's left sort of broken with this lingering melancholy, and the war and industrial revolution it brought has scarred the once pristine, pastoral land forever.
Tolkien swore down that while the bit about industry was an intentional allegory, and while Samwise's loyalty to Frodo was inspired by the bonds and loyalty of troops in the war, that his book was NOT intended as an allegory for the war, and that this was an incorrect reading.
BUT reading it this way is considered a very valid approach in literary academia, because you can clearly draw parallels, you can cite lots of academics who have made similar assertions, and you can frame it that while Tolkein never strictly intended the work to be an allegory, the war clearly shaped his consciousness and life so much that he perhaps unintentionally mirrored it in his work. I personally think this is a valid reading, speaking as somebody whose early pre-coming-out work wasn't intended to have homosexual subtext, but a lot of people read it that way and so weren't surprised when I realised I was gay and it had been leaking out into my work for years subconsciously. 
If, on the other hand, I made a really silly assertion like... errr... Okay, let's say "I think The Wind in the Willows is a retelling of the story of Calligula!" most academics will look at you expectantly for what kind of Galaxy Brain explanation you're going to pull out on this one, because it sure as hell doesn't seem probable that this was the writer's intention in this extremely wholesome collection of children's stories that in no way shape or form seems to mirror the characters or narrative structure of Shakespeare's worst and edgiest play. Nobody can tell you this is a "wrong" reading... but it certainly is unlikely to be seen as a "good" reading that gives insight into either the book, the nature of humanity or art or all three, unless you legitimately do find some critical quotes that somehow support this and actually do write a galaxy brain essay that makes the connection make absolute sense, in which case, go and do a Phd in literature like RIGHT NOW.
