Unauthorised Entry Into School Premises Can Constitute 'House Trespass' Under IPC As Schools Qualify As 'Place For Custody Of Property' : Chhattisgarh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Single Bench of Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, dismissed a petition filed by an accused member of a student union who sought discharge from charges arising out of an alleged trespass into a school premises and the hurling of abuses at staff members. The Court affirmed that a school building qualifies as a "place for custody of property" under the statutory definition of house-trespass in the Indian Penal Code, since school furniture and educational assets are kept there in custody, thereby attracting the provision concerning house-trespass prepared with intent to cause hurt or assault. Accordingly, the charge framed by the trial court was upheld.
The matter arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the dismissal of a revision petition affirming an order framing charges under Sections 452, 294 and 34 IPC. The petitioner was accused in connection with a complaint alleging that he, along with others, entered a school premises during a protest and allegedly hurled abuses at the complainant and female staff members. The prosecution case was based on the FIR and statements of the complainant, the headmistress, and several staff members, who stated that the accused entered the school premises and misbehaved.
The petitioner contended that the complaint was motivated and that a school building does not fall within the definition of a “dwelling house” under Section 452 IPC. He relied on a Delhi High Court decision to support his argument. The State opposed the plea, submitting that prima facie material existed and that the scope at the stage of framing charge is limited to examining whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed.
The Court recorded that “From perusal of FIR it transpires that a named report has been lodged by the complainant that the petitioner along with other members of NSUI entered into the school premises… and when the complainant tried to stop them, they started hurling abuses and misbehaved the female staff of the school.” It further observed that “From the statement of Sanjay Tripathi… and other staff, it primafacie demonstrates that on the date of alleged incident the petitioner along with other members… entered into the school premises and hurling abuses to the female staff and other persons.”
While examining Section 452 IPC, the Court reproduced: “Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person… shall be punished…” It also reproduced Section 442 IPC, stating: “Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building… 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’.”
On interpretation, the Court observed: “From the conjoint reading of these three Sections it would clearly demonstrate that whoever criminally trespassed by entering into any building… used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place of worship or as a place for custody of the property, said to commit house trespass.” It recorded: “The school building would definitely cannot be a human dwelling house or place of worship but it can be considered to be a place for custody of the property where school furniture and other educational assets are being kept in safe custody.”
Relying on precedent, the Court quoted: “a school is a building used as a human dwelling within the contemplation of Section 442, of the I.P.C.” It also reproduced Supreme Court dicta stating: “at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for ‘presuming’ that the accused had committed the offence.” Further, it quoted: “what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out… The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”
The Court concluded: “From the entire material annexed with the petition, this court does not find any infirmity or illegality in framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 452 IPC.”
“In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available in the charge sheet as well as in the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, the present petition does not have any merit and is hereby dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate
Case Title: Vikas Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: CRMP No. 8 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
